/lit/ - Literature

>>15219168
Yes

>>15219168
Libertarians - and by extension Liberals, are the most evil people, yes.

Yes. At least fascists have a moral code.

libertarians make so many people seethe these days that they must be on to something desu

>>15219168
American-style liberals are much worse.

>>15219168

>Be you
>Be too stupid to generate value on your own
>Have to partake in corporate structure in order to generate any value at all
>Person who builds said corporate structure takes part of the value generated by the labor
>If you disagree you can be replaced because guess what, your job isn't that hard and its not like you can think of a better alternative

You should be grateful lol. Go stand in a field and generate value by yourself.

>>15219168
that image always makes me lol

>>15219168
Imagine not being self employed.

>>15219239
Oh no they want people to have healthcare

>>15219252
>You should be grateful lol. Go stand in a field and generate value by yourself.
this. Imagine thinking the guy flipping hamburgers at a building he didn't build, with food he didn't grow, with machines he didn't manufacture, with a recipe he didn't invent, serving customers he didn't find, backed up by the reputation of a business he didn't create "Made the hamburger"

>>15219265
The problem with most Marxists is that they usually have no idea how the real economy works and they are too theoretical. So, they end up making stuff like this image.

>>15219252
>generate value on your own
No such thing. Do you not understand how social relationships work?

>>15219286
And to destroy the family, promote promiscuity, drugs. Not to mention trying to ruin the life of anyone who disagrees with their political opinions.

>>15219168
A lot of self-described libertarians are just conservatives who have an aesthetic opposition to the "effete old fat guy with no ideological grounds, pursuing whatever policy ends best accommodate his religious cultural preferences" archetypal republican.
They're correct in identifying that there's no actual ideology in the republican party and that it's an ugly mess, so you can't call them entirely evil. Most Americans are Left Libertarians, which is probably the sanest political position you can have. Left Libertarianism is the ideology of normal people.
Fascists definitely are not better.
They're highly propagandized violent young men who sublimate their personal disenfranchisement and impotence into a mostly aesthetic political movement which would make life significantly worse for them and for everyone else. It's a larp until it's not, and once it's not a larp it's hell on earth. The revisionist history around nazi germany and fascist italy is ubiquitous but make no mistake- those were bad times for everyone but the party elite. You will not be a part of the party elite.
I don't dig broad strokes or propaganda memes but I saved pic related because I thought it was funny and it rings more true than most of the lefty bullshit.

>>15219290
They are the only ones that do know how it works

>>15219252
what does any of that have to do with taxes being theft?

>>15219238

>>15219290
it's the complete lack of any sort of scale or measurement of what they're talking about

>>15219308
kek confusing liberals with lefties again.
Go read a book, don't make such retarded threads on /lit/

>>15219168
This has never been a very good attack on Lib-Right thought in my mind. Because they would just sat that you have a choice of finding an employer that would pay you more.
I've always got more mileage out of arguing that even if one weakens the state extensively or gets rid of it entirely, corporations and other aggregations of capital will just take over and rule far more brutally.

That essentially the state is almost guaranteed to come into existence again and that even in the presence of a moderately strong state, capital will still begin to undermine it and grab power. Essentially to stop capital from spiraling out of control you need to snuff it out in the crib.
One the other hand going full Stalinist or something related is also normally undesirable, so you need a balance.

>>15219308
>destroy the family
all ideology
>promote promiscuity
all ideology. sex is fine.
>drugs
some drugs are fine.

>>15219327
In my experience they just offer some handwave about how the free market will make sure bad actors fail all of the time.

>>15219328
don't argue on his retarded terms. are you new?

>>15219328
Cringe

>>15219328
Case in point

>>15219326
>kek confusing liberals with lefties again.
I specifically said "American-style liberals". Or are you saying that "lefties" are the ones trying to destroy family and make anyone a mega hedonist?

>>15219297

>Being this retarded

If I'm alone in the forest and I see an apple in a tree, and I climb the tree to pick the apple, then I take a bite from the apple I have extracted the (nutritional) value from a resource that would be useless (to me) had I not put the effort in.

>>15219326
Leftoids and liberals are functionally identical

>>15219342
>>15219343
underage

>>15219358
Projection

>>15219337
I've had that, but anyone spectating can see that it is bullshit.
And I could just talk about how the earliest Kings and Conquerors were those that had the most capital and used that to take over in response.

Worse than that though is when people argue using the NAP as if it is some kind if immutable law.

>>15219348
we're also going to collectivise your toothbrush, amerikkkan pig

>>15219308

>Promote promiscuity, drugs

>>15219252
Define 'better alternative'

Right-libertarians are among the most non-egoistic people since they suggest relegating power and capital to corporations while they themselves usually don't personally benefit from it that much. Compare it to leftists and nationalists who are driven by animalistic desire for gibsmedats and redistribution of resources for their social groups. Meanwhile, centrists oppose changes because they are already well-off and only care about their asses.

>b-but the end results...
It doesn't matter. You've asked if they are evil. The answer depends on their principles and goals.

>>15219377

>Pretending to not understand what I mean

What is a better alternative to sucking dick behind the gas station? Flipping hamburgers.
What is a better alternative to flipping hamburgers? I don't know how about being the manager?
What is a better alternative to being the manager? Running a tech startup idk

You know goddamn well what I mean lmao.

>>15219252
>generate value by yourself
for whom?

>>15219328
>>15219375
And that's what makes you worse than libertarians.
Libertarians are useless. But at least they don't promote self-destructive behavior.

>>15219168
imagine believing in LTV

>>15219395
No, I really don't.

If you mean 'better' simply as in 'most profitable' then it's a circular argument. You'll never be more profitable than a giant supercorp no matter how hard you work or how much you innovate.

>>15219348
>Destroy the family
Really bro? Because years of r*ghtoid austerity and capitalistic abandonment of the public sphere have created material conditions where, for the average family, a single worker household is unfeasible. You think this "proud women workers don't need men" thing is the cause of family destruction? No. It is just corporate propaganda providing a cope for women so they don't have to emotionally deal with the fact that, because the jobs are so hard to get and pay so little, the cost of living is so high, healthcare is so inaccessible, education is so expensive, housing is so unlikely and unstable, employment is so precarious, they literally do not have the option to get kids. It's a good fucking thing we have contraception because if we didn't, the US would be straight up africa-mode right now. Just starving kids fucking everywhere.
The loss of religion, community, and social cohesion is because of dwindling free time and the complete destruction of the public sphere by the corporate-governmental apparatus which thrives and expands under conditions brought about by family-values conservative politicans.
Reagan closed the asylums, so now we have petty crime and homelessness. Bush started the iraq fucking war so your taxes keep going higher while the war is endless. Democrats are just as bad, they do the same shit while pretending to give a fuck about the american worker. This disenfranchisement povides ample breeding ground for addiction, look at the socially conservative states teeming with drugs, overdoses, suicides.
This is a longass block of text, I'm not actually butt hurt just overcaffeinated and tryign to explain to you the disconnect between your rightist beliefs and your stated goals of a cohesive structured social community built around the family. The right has produced conditions under which it is nearly impossible for a family unit to exist.

>>15219373
>we're also going to collectivise your toothbrush, amerikkkan pig
I believe you should apologize for this post >>15219326, anon (if you are the same anon)

>>15219402
nobody forces you to take heroin, faggot
but they should

>>15219355
Too bad you aren't alone in a forest, idiot

>>15219393
>simping for huge corporations instead of people who have it harsh, or even themselves
wow, so virtuous...

>>15219168
>Surplus value
doesnt exist

>>15219252
>>15219287
The image may be poorly phrased because it focuses on the individual worker rather than the entire workforce as a whole. However the point still stands. It is the workforce — not the owners— who design commodities, manufacture them, package them, market them, sell them, load them, ship them, deliver them, take care of accounts, manage the workplace... in short, the workforce does every thing that is necessary and sufficient to produce value for the company. The owners merely make an initial investment and perhaps implement business strategies (nothing that couldn’t have been done by the workers themselves) yet they are the ones who run home with all the profit.

The question, then, is not whether one can produce value on his own without help from anyone, but whether the entire workforce, which is already responsible for producing all the profits in all the companies, can produce value without having some dictator at the top who takes the fruit of their labour.

>>15219328
>family is ideology
Retard

>>15219393
Not sure how having brain worms is being non-egotistical

>>15219431
>le american boomer """"philosopher""""

>>15219393
Nothing wrong with self-interest

>>15219431
No I am saying that you think they want to destroy the family is all ideology. If anything their proposals are helpful.

>>15219393
They do that because they believe that they have the same opportunities and chances that trust fund babies those greatest risk is having to ask dad for another half million to invest.
They shill for millionaires because they are themselves as future millionaires, not due to any goodness of their hearts

>>15219393
I don't trust anyone that is interested in change and doesn't gain from it.

Regardless, I don't believe you are right. Right Libertarians trend towards three groups. People that aren't well-off, failing small business owners or people that work low end jobs, and believe that the Government is holding them back and don't realize the dangers of corporations. And engineers, doctors, lawyers, other well paying trades (mainly engineers) that believe that they'd be able to navigate the system better if there weren't any rules or regulations in place. And finally people that are actually wealthy and try and get even more power.
The first two of these groups are very much mistaken in gaining anything, while the last has a whole ton to benefit.

>>15219443
Libertarians giving up any ability to accumulate capital to have child wives might be shortsighted though

>>15219449
>it's all ideology, even though Marx proposed it and many communists have tried (and failed) to abolish it as well

>>15219407

Better by the individual's own definition.
Let's say person A an B have a similar set of skills.
Person A only cares about making money so he joins megacorp.inc and accepts that they take part of his paycheck in order to have a steady stream of billable hours.
Person B values independence more and starts up his own company, takes the risk and probably won't make as much money especially in the early stages of the company.

It really isn't that complicated lol. Nothing immoral about either choice.

>>15219453

>Valueing shekels over cunny

It is you who is shortsighted

>>15219468
he opposed the nuclear family not the traditional family, moron.

>>15219468
this communist right here is going to destroy your family by fucking you are mum lmao

>>15219415

>Goalposting

You said 'no such thing'

It's ok to be wrong. Shhh.

>>15219475
Never said anything about morality. Even moreso considering libertarianism lacks any. They even (dishonestly) disregard self-interest.

>>15219484
That's probably even worse, as the nuclear family is the most important one of all. Without a father and a mother, people just get fucked.

>>15219422

No. Because the 'dictator' is hard to replace, not impossible, but hard. Wageslaves are a dime a dozen. How is this a hard concept?

>>15219492
the whole concept of value doesn't make sense outside of society you moron

>>15219490
Lmao you are the one who goalposted from economic value in society to some nutritional value in a forest your literal retard

>>15219493
it's like you haven't read anything at all

>>15219484
this whole Marxist meme about nuclear vs traditional family is dumb. The latter is literally just an extended version of the former, the basis is still the two parents and children.

>>15219493
maybe you should get fucked once in a while

>>15219499
meant for >>15219490

>>15219500

We only used the term value. Depending on your situation one might be worth more than the other, and in a sense, one is the other (you spend your money on necessities).

>>15219499

>>15219488
sure breh

>>15219516
Lmao you really retarded, but I guess that's what I get for arguing with libertarians

>>15219311
Individualism is always selfish and backwards. Imagine defining ontology by math or even truth or being by math. It's the same thing as defining a society by the individual, not even the family. The culture inherently is bigger than any individual so to define it by it's toes, so to speak, is ridiculous

>>15219528
what makes you think she's not into trannies?

>>15219499

To value something is to ascribe value to something. Why do I need a society for that?
You always value certain things more than others. I might value honey more than sand, or I might value my own life over that of an animal.
Yes, society makes this more complex and fragmented, but society does that for everything. How is society a prerequisite? You haven't made an argument for that at all, you just called me a retard.

>>15219533
>selfish = bad
is that an individual opinion you hold? :^)

>>15219546
Probably the fact that she's a Sunni muslim and has said in private that homosexuals and trannies should be thrown from the rooftops.

>>15219561
religious girls are the kinkiest

>>15219417
Well, they obviously believe that if we abolish taxes, everybody will be better off. Explain to me how 'kill the rich', 'kill non-whites' or 'don't change anything since I'm fine' is a more virtuous approach.

>>15219435
Not an argument, idiot.

>>15219451
>they are themselves as future millionaires
Not really. Have you ever talked to them? Most of them are cringy teens who watch Shapiro and Peterson.

>>15219454
>first two of these groups are very much mistaken
Does it make them evil?

>while the last has a whole ton to benefit.
There are 540 billionaires in USA. Even if all of them were libertarians, it's a miniscule number compared to the total number of libertarians.

>>15219559
No an ontological one, I already set the ontological foundation of my point on it. Just translate selfish into derivative or caring about your toenails over your whole person

>>15219533
>Individualism is always selfish

Yes, and? Selfishness is not inherently-negative.

Nearly all human action is egoistic. You're not free from it, either.

>>15219565
Even if she were, i doubt she'd do anything with abominations like that.

>>15219578
what makes your whole person worth more than your toenails but your opinion?

>>15219422
If your hypothesis is correct, socialists can triumph without firing a single bullet or winning a single election. If worker ownership of business can lead to business decisions just as rational as traditional hierarchical firms, they will displace those firms.

>>15219579
Yes it just matter where the attention is focused. Generally selfish means you focus on small picture you vs big picture, the ppl around you as well, or that's the accusation

Why are commies so bad at arguing? Whenever you ask them to prove anything, it's always either insults or "ugggh it's not my job to educate you!".
At least /pol/ learned that mass infographic dumps dont really convince anyone who isnt already converted.

>>15219589
R u stupid?

>>15219602
Why should I argue with an idiot that doesn’t read?

>>15219168
I don't like libertarianism but authoritarianism is objectively more evil, like this article for example

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/what-covid-revealed-about-internet/610549/

>>15219233
Not even a libertarian but they clearly have “a [collective] moral code” in the NAP. Though it has its problems. And each libertarian has his own moral code (or not) that he doesn’t think he can force onto others (with the exception of forcing others not to force).

>>15219598
not the guy you're responding to but the big picture is a subjective and rather nebulous concept. are you one of those faggots who believes in objective progress and a teleological endpoint to history? if not then you can't talk about a big picture earnestly

>>15219617
That should just make it easier for you to win the argument, but if you really feel that way then why are you posting

>>15219622
Good thing we’d rather just let people drink bleach instead because the president doesn’t understand sarcasm

>>15219498
The work force is impossible to replace. Don’t think about a single worker; think about the entire collective workforce.

>>15219617
>ugggh it's not my job to educate you!
case in point

>>15219653
if people are that retarded they deserve to die

>>15219602
>mass info graphic dumps don’t work
A whole generation of young men were pilled on those

>>15219651
To shitpost, duh

>>15219576
I don't think we should kill the rich. Just confiscate all their belongings and use them to guarantee people stop starving to death or avoid getting their lives ruined by illness. That's all.

>>15219640
I'm not sure I believe in teleology. I'm a determinist but I don't think teleology is defined well enough.
I'm a metaphysical realist, I believe in a metaphysical hierarchy that caln be called by a cause and effect lattice. Similar to math needing logic, logic ontology, ontology truth and truth being but for everything

>>15219610
is being stupid bad in your opinion?

>>15219662
Everyone is retarded in the beginning

>>15219265
>that image always makes me lol

>>15219678
I can respect that. But in your system, if it doesn't have a metanarrative, what is the big picture? What is the ends that justify the subjugation of the individual to the collective?

>>15219667
>complains about other people not reading
>Also claims to only post to shitpost
doesnt add up anon. Just admit you're afraid to argue with people who dont already agree with you.

>>15219617
That's a nazi that got emboldened, dw about them. They're trash vultures

>>15219689
wojak always makes me lol

>>15219699
>funny pictures make giggle gland go haha

>>15219168
This image shows how Classical Marxists and Libertarians are both naive about how value is actually created

>>15219665
I actually do wonder if there was any research done into what was the most effective form of /pol/ propaganda. I cant imagine that the infographs were the most effective form of it.

>>15219694
It sounds like a waste to argue with people who firmly hold their beliefs I find wrong

>>15219655

The 'work force' would do nothing but jerk off and drink beer all day if there was no one to tell them what to do.

>>15219716
>thinking value exists in the first place
pretty naive tbqhwyfd

>>15219594
No, a worker-owned business would put the workers first primarily. Its main purpose would not be to outcompete everyone and make as much profit as possible no matter the moral cost, as it is in capitalist businesses. They would not be able to manufacture in China and pay the workers so little and overwork them so much that they have to set up suicide nets in order to prevent on-the-job suicides, for example. So they would get outcompeted and eventually go bust. The worker co-operatives that there are do very well actually, but it would be impossible for them to enter certain sectors and become as big as the mega-corps.

>>15219717
That's just the cowardice i was talking about. You're the guy on the left of this pic, and you're losing to the guy on the right.

>>15219724
Most workers don’t meet the CEOs or shareholders. The managers (who are also workers) tell them what to do.

>>15219694
>leftypol organize raids
>proceed to angrily talk about how they dont need to argue their points
highly sophisticated pottery

>>15219742
who cares about losing online arguments. they'll grow out of it.

>>15219742
There’s a difference between educating your average teenager and arguing with someone on 4chan

>>15219742
left guys looks like a bro

>>15219594
That wouldn't be how it would work.
A standard business prioritizes profit over all else. A worker ran company prioritizes the workers.
This means that in a standard capitalist system a standard company will out compete a worker ran one due to how success is measured. However the quality of life for those in the second and likely even the quality of work produced will be higher.

>>15219743

Who get their instructions from?

>>15219742
>let me get my muslim rape statistics
lmao, i wonder if whoever made this understands how funny that is

>>15219734
Worker owned business are anti socialist as they always lead to a misappropriation of wealth and regardless are driven on the calculus of profitability and will engage in production cuts if need be. Is terribly infeasible and in any case exclusionary to outside workers. The only way to enact socialism is total state ownership. Command economies eliminate the problems described.

>>15219756
>commie thinks he's "educating" anyone
Lel
I once had a nigger try to "educate" me about how i was accountable for slavery.
Pro-tip: if you want to actually change the opinion of someone, never go into it with the attitude that you're "educating" them, especially when you dont really know what you're talking about.

>>15219742
kill all zoomers

>>15219782
>The only way to enact socialism is total state ownership.
that's just a dictatorship

>>15219286
>American liberals
>Wanting health care
nope

>>15219754
You often dont really argue with people to convince them (both parties are too emotionally involved for that to happen), but more to convince anyone in the audience. If you keep pussying out then this will be seen as conceding defeat, and will give validity to the other party.

>>15219787
I was talking about the image, but okay? You should probably take your own advice too though

>>15219798
A dictatorship of and for the workers.

>>15219806
they dont need to argue because the dissenting views are banned from 99% of the internet. 4chan might have some small impact but realistically it doesnt do anything

>>15219767
Right but if you look at my original post I said the job of the CEO could be done by someone who is also a worker, who is democratically elected by the workers, and who has the workers’ interests at heart.

>>15219798
Wrong.

>>15219820
Is it a democracy then, do the workers vote on everything? Or is there some small group of people who are calling the shots

>>15219773
Whats funny about rape bro

>>15219833
The human suffering

>>15219825

Do you know literally anything about this subject? In a lot of, dare I say most, big companies the CEO is a worker, he is however not elected by workers but hired by the people who own the company because guess what, if the CEO fucks up they are the ones who take the losses.

>>15219782
Nope. If the workers feel they are not being properly represented they can vote out the executives and elect someone new. I do agree that the state must be present always so as to prevent bad decisions made on the part of the workers but that’s it.

>>15219824
>Far right most powerful it's ever been since WW2, both culturally and politically
>Left/far left practically dead, either consumed by neoliberals while any radicalized parts of the electorate gravitate towards far right
>Concepts that were once extremely fringe have now entered into a more common discussion, which already gives them validity
You really ought to take this more seriously. Like shit, i saw /pol/ shit in my local European newspaper, even.

>>15219855
>I do agree that the state must be present always so as to prevent bad decisions made on the part of the workers
absolutely lol

>>15219852
This is utterly irrelevant. Can a company function without the parasitic owners taking away the fruits of the workers’ labour or not?

>>15219855
>I do agree that the state must be present always so as to prevent bad decisions made on the part of the workers
The epicycles keep growing and growing.

>>15219844
true, i suppose that is funny

>>15219168

This image attempts to rhetorically dismiss libertarian logic as absurd, and in the attempt, it simply presents an accurate model which is the case. It's a wonderfully self-defeating piece of rhetoric. The only improvement to be made is to get rid of the snarky scare quotes in the white balloons.

>>15219617
>Why should I argue with an idiot that doesn’t read?
You're shooting on your own foot here: the working class masses ARE idiots that don't read. You've to spread the word, not send people to just read.

Libertarianism is the end point of liberalism on both the societal and the economic scales and the logical conclusion of 18th century enlightenment. So yes it's really bad. Make no mistake, liberalism (on the societal scale) and free market conservatives (one the economic scale) are nearly as bad. The only reasonable position is illiberalism: to reject modernity entirely.

>>15219252
>Your boss "created" this job for you and so you need to always obey to him and accept how much he decides to take away for himself and do whatever he wants to appropriate that productivity because he is the one taking the "risks"
Imagine being this much of a cuck bootlicker.
You might aswell abdicate your voting rights but this dumb dumb logic.

>>15219894

You've just explained why it's good, though. You just rattled off a series of isms which are good.

>>15219688
It’s not kids drinking bleach because daddy drumpf told them to

>>15219168
What the fuck does this have to do with literature? Go to /pol/.

>>15219766
In a worker owned business the profits would go to the workers, right?

>>15219239
They’re the same people. They aren’t really libertarian.

>>15219286
That’s some progressives, left-liberals. But yeah, once in office they somehow forget about all that.

>>15219308
Shut up, liberal

>>15219409
"rightoid austerity" is just another facet of liberalism. Societal liberalism (abolishing the family, promoting anomie and social atomization) and economic liberalism (capitalism) are two offshoot of the same movement.

>>15219936
It would go to the top workers.

>>15219936
It would go to executives and upper management. This is why a command economy is needed.

>>15219308
>>15219944
Promiscuity and drugs are counter-revolutionary, though.

>>15219168
What a preciously American thread
>alt-right
Was years ago, and the coinage was artificial psyop branding, as if a former an Occupy democrat running the Charlottesville cirkus wasn't an indication enough.

>>15219949
>"rightoid austerity" is just another facet of liberalism
'Dems are the real racists' -- like, comment, upvote, subscribe, consume, coom

>>15219468
Only Engels proposed something that was akin to "abolishing the family" entirely but he was out of his mind. Marx did use the words but was only targeting the bourgois family. The nuclear family is a degraded form of the extended multi-generational family that dominated prior to industrialization. One should aspire to restore the extended multi-generational family, not keep the already dying nuclear family.

>>15219870

By definition no. Because someone has to own the company, these people could be the workers themselves and in the case of some smaller companies they are (think mom and pop shops).
A company can't just exist in a vacuum, it has to be owned by some entity, either stockholders, someone like Zuck or the state.
Now yes, you could have a company where the workers own the company. But then what happens when the company turns out to be successful beyond belief? Then suddenly I'm a fry cook and a millionaire. Then what do I do? Do I keep flipping burgers or do I find someone else to do it for me for 5 bucks an hour?
What if I'm a manager worker and I want to expand the company? Ok so I open a new restaurant and now what? I have to give part of the company to any new employee I want to hire? How are the workers that already work for the company going to feel about the fact that I'm diluting the fruits of their work?

But fine, lets say we do that, lets say that every worker of the company and every new employee owns a part of that company now. Do all workers get an equal share? Does the fry cook get the same amount as the person making important decisions? If your answer is no then we are back to square one, because the people who have the most leverage (i.e. are the hardest to replace) will accumulate the most wealth and within no time there will be a single person or a board owning most of the company again, reaping most of the benefits.

So what is the difference? If the difference is the ownership of the company you work for I have news for you, you can do that if you want to, it's called the stock market. If I work for McDee's and I want to own a part of the company I can use my paycheck to purchase stocks.

So as you can see, the things you propose are already perfectly possible, you just need someone to point a finger at and say ur bad cause ur rich, There will always be those within a corporate structure who accumulate more than others, calling these people parasites because you're not one of them is juvenile.

>>15219888
I’m not talking about arguing with workers

t. worker who hasn’t read Marx

>>15219998

>/biz/posting on /lit/

Absolutely futile lol

>>15219832
Depends on your Marxist sect. Vanguard-oriented movements usually have democratic centralism which is, well, not very democratic.

>>15219168
agreed

>>15219991
What describes the current range of right-wing ideologies that’s popular? Trumpism?

>>15219493
The traditional family includes a mother and father aswell retard. But it isnt limited to just mother-father-son relations, you have aunts, grandparents and cousins closer to you and helping eachother.

>>15219979
Seemed a reactionary’s knock at “idpol” social liberation.
Indeed, drugs are used to crush communities, but there is no freedom without freer love. Family survives it because families are built on love

>>15219998
>ur bad cause ur rich
It's true though. Most if not all businessmen are sociopaths.

>>15220050

>Most businessmen are sociopaths

Debatable. Snakes in Suits isn't gospel. But even if they were they are rich because they are ruthless, not the other way around.

>>15220050
Same holds true for people who gravitate towards politics. Most communist party leaders were sociopaths as well, so i dont see why i should trust them over the average business guy.

>>15219290
Marxism is the most cogent and all-encompassing analysis of society - historical materialism in particular. There's a reason Marx is considered the founder of sociology.

Besides, no one really knows "how the real economy works". How is claiming that labour is the ultimate source of all value that absurd when our economy is built on derivatives within derivatives withing derivatives? It's all bullshit.

>>15219409
The people with the highest birth rates in the US are Indios from Guatemala that live 10 people to a box and have 3.5 kids to Stacey's 0.5, lel. Birth rates have a U-shaped curve relative to income.
>healthcare is so inaccessible
Because you can't import drugs from the rest of the world where they're synthesized thanks to FDA "protecting" you.
>education is so expensive
Education for 90% of people is just signaling. You're paying for the name on the degree. It'd be faster to give people an IQ test to get them into an entry level job, but that's a Civil Rights violation.
>housing is so unlikely and unstable
Zoning laws to blame.
>The loss of religion, community, and social cohesion is because of dwindling free time
Working hours have been going down since the Industrial Revolution
>Reagan closed the asylums, so now we have petty crime and homelessness.
This was a mistake
>Bush started the iraq fucking war so your taxes keep going higher while the war is endless.
The military is mostly a gibs program and is still less than mandatory spending on other gibs programs.
>>15219409
>This is a longass block of text, I'm not actually butt hurt just overcaffeinated and tryign to explain to you the disconnect between your rightist beliefs and your stated goals of a cohesive structured social community built around the family. The right has produced conditions under which it is nearly impossible for a family unit to exist.
You can't have a cohesive community built around families when women can leave the family at the drop of a hat.

>>15220123
>Marxism is the most cogent and all-encompassing analysis of society
it's not even close. It's extremely reductive and ignores all sorts of things about human behavior

>>15220128
So, you agree with me.

>>15219998
Look up worker co-operatives. You don’t know what you are talking about.

>>15220162
I don't think so, I'm genuinely promoting economic liberalism (mostly). I actually believe in relaxing pharmaceutical import laws, abolishing educational credentialism, abolishing zoning laws, etc.

>>15220128
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Right
Wrong
Wrong

1/8 that's pretty dismal

>>15220208
Why do you disagree?

>>15220128
>You can't have a cohesive community built around families when women can leave the family at the drop of a hat.
You can, people like to form families and have fulfilling relations. Just pop any video asking women what they want to do in their next 20 years and almost all of them want to marry and have babies at some point. If you ask some why did they leave their families behind most of them say it was either because of abuse (and most cases of abuse are caused by financial problems running in the family) or to look for a better opportunity to earn some better job.

Even the most egelitarian tribal societies that exist today that provide women equal opportunities at holding perstige, material goods and equal divorce rights have stronger family units and "values" than any western nation had.
This presuppostion that women have a "default" mode that just wants to fuck around is wrong.

And yes most social studies, polls and even history suggest that this decline in "traditional family values" is more often than not caused by economic problems linked to the capitalist machine that is always in need to butcher them to max out effeciency. And it doesnt take an expert today to even go out and see why you have these trends going up.

>>15219168
I used to be a right libertarian; I read plenty of Hoppe, Rothbard, Mises, Rand, etc. and I can confirm that it really is just bad propaganda. Most libertarian organizations (libertarian party, cato, von mises institute) are just astroturf organizations, and when you get to the core of it, libertarian philosophy is just a shitty arbitrary ethical system where imaginary property 'rights' are supreme, pedophilia, child labor, poverty, and eugenics are all justifiable.

For any libertarians out there reading this now, I implore you to de-spook yourselves and check out Mike Huben's Critiques of Libertarianism website.

>>15219168
No, right libertarians at least have some vague ideal of having personal freedom at all costs. "Moderate liberals" have no such thing, they want state oppression to ensure that corporate oppression is unchallenged.

>>15220311
Libertarianism is important for anyone trying to become an entrepreneur.
So nope I'm gonna keep being libertarian

>>15220306
birth rates

>they want people to live like ants.
but that's what commies do? liberals want us to live like beasts, while libertards want us to live like sociopaths.

>>15220306
Idk. I've witnessed a lot of divorces where there was plenty of money being made and the women ditched her husband and broke the family because she wanted to upgrade to a Chad. This is weird because older men have a higher sexual market value than older women yet women act like they do at 16 their whole lives.
I blame men not realizing how their sexual market value goes up over time. Men should settle for women that are at least 7 years younger than them.

>>15219420
The fact that you don't understand the concept doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Take a farmer, owning his land, owning his farm and his tools. He has to work so much to provide for his family. Now take the same farmer, with the same farm. Only this time, he doesn't own his land, and he doesn't own his farm. He works to feed his family, but he has to work more. Why? To pay the rent on the land and the farm. The surplus labor he has to work, in order to pay the landlord is called surplus value.
Surplus value is linked to private property of the means of production. There is no one without the other.

>>15219252
Based!

>>15220038
Too bad marriage rates are down and suicide is up. So much for your 60s theory on love

>>15219168
>I think fascists are better people than them.
Yes

>>15220476
t. obviously hasn't read Marx

>>15219252
>generate value
>generate any value
>value generated
the liberal/libertarian doesn't even see how evil he is

>>15220038
Free love just ends in a war of all against all where the losers outnumber the winners. Modern online dating has proven that.

>>15220345
What about them? Of course as societies evolve and have better tech to provide you with better health so too do your expectations and all these are again conditioned by economic factors aswell. A western family is going to prefer to raise 1-3 kids that they know they will be able to afford to raise and save them from most of the wildest health problems that may happen. In contrast, a family from a 3rd world country knows they wont be able to save all their kids if something happens so to max out the chances of having them in the long run they increase their numbers.

This of course isnt the whole story, and there are other social codes that promote this. Im not implying that people in general either want to have lots and lots of kids or none at all, this varies a lot from person to person, but the fact that the economic costs to raise one in the western world are so high is a major one limiting the birthrates.

>>15220376
I think this is another whole topic. I've seen a lot of men doing this aswell and ruining the family themselves, but i would say this is more at fault of people being stupid and marrying and forming relations with ones that they didnt like that much to begin with, and there is also the material factors that make people enter in these marriages that they werent interested.
In those tribal egelitarian societies where divorce laws are simple and easy for both parties, these divorces happen more often because they dont get along with eachother rather than material reasons. And still happens with very less frequency than other tribes that arent as equal.
And lets be honest here, you wouldnt like to be stuck in a marriage with some vile bitch that tricked you and now you have to give away half of your possessions and risk staying homeless.

>>15219998
Good post. Now look at the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
Also, your logical thinking thinks about owning the company, inside Capitalism. So Basically, owning the company, inside a mode of production which keeps exchange value, money, some delegation of power, the state, wage labor, profit as an incentive for production, and the classic cycle of the capital: Capital - production - more Capital.
Marx is not about keeping the Capital, it's about abolishing exchange value, wage labor, class based society, and, in the end, abolishing the division of labor, the very concept of a correlation between what you do, and what you get.

>>15220534

What's wrong with generating value? Especially, how is it worse than not generating value?

>>15220561
every developed country is below replacement except Israel

>>15220578
China is above replacement level

>>15220578
Yes and thats in par with what i said.
wealth increases -> better expectations -> higher costs so that your kids can survive

>>15220583
china's fertility rate is 1.68, replacement is 2.1

>>15220572

>the tendency of the rate of profit to fall

Um... it doesn't exist? What? Profits tend to rise, because populations tend to grow which means there are more people to buy your crap.
I mean sure it happens, but to say there is a tendency towards that happening is blatantly false.

>Also, your logical thinking thinks about owning the company, inside Capitalism. So Basically, owning the company, inside a mode of production which keeps exchange value, money, some delegation of power, the state, wage labor, profit as an incentive for production, and the classic cycle of the capital: Capital - production - more Capital.

A right so we uproot the foundations of society just so you say you could be right.

>abolishing the division of labor, the very concept of a correlation between what you do, and what you get.

So no matter what two laborers do their outcomes will be equal? But then who decides what outcomes are equal by what metric? Also why would I choose to work 60 hours a week as opposed to doing literally nothing if there is no correlation between what I do and what I get? To serve my fellow man? Yeah that's what people are like lol.
It's a nice enough sentiment but completely incompatible with human behavior, which you would know if you were honest with yourself for longer than 5 seconds.

>>15220622
>So no matter what two laborers do their outcomes will be equal? But then who decides what outcomes are equal by what metric? Also why would I choose to work 60 hours a week as opposed to doing literally nothing if there is no correlation between what I do and what I get? To serve my fellow man? Yeah that's what people are like lol.
>It's a nice enough sentiment but completely incompatible with human behavior, which you would know if you were honest with yourself for longer than 5 seconds.
What seem completely out of question in an historical era seems perfectly fine when the era has switched.
>Profits tend to rise, because populations tend to grow which means there are more people to buy your crap.
I mean sure it happens, but to say there is a tendency towards that happening is blatantly false.
Not profit, rate of profit: (surplus value) / (Capital invested).

>>15220598
The poor in rich nations have more children

>>15219420
This.

https://mises.org/wire/end-marxian-exploitation-theory
https://mises.org/wire/wicksteed-surplus-value
https://mises.org/wire/three-arguments-debunking-marx%E2%80%99s-labor-theory-value

>>15220545
>modern online dating
This is just a way for people to find each other. It doesn’t prove anything. It hardly works any better or worse than conventional methods.
In free love there is only winners and people that don’t love, but only wish to posses.

>>15220574
Nothing.
I'm a value generator. If I'm a poor value generator, I deserve to be decommissioned and replaced. We are all tools and machines to lift Moloch to heaven.

>>15220675

>when the era has switched

And when will that happen? When the workers seize the means of production through violent revolution?
So you're advocating killing people because of a hypothetical future that is better? Is that what you're saying?
Because that's basically what happened in the past, except the hypothetical future never came.

Just think for a moment. You are supporting an ideology that literally advocates systematic murder on bases of income class and you somehow consider those at the top of corporate hierarchies 'evil'. How much cognitive dissonance does that take lmao.

>>15220723

Oh sorry I should love you for who you are deep inside regardless of what you do for me because you're such a special boy?

>>15220732
Now you are being irrational. About this accusation of violence, the 24 yellow vests who lost an eye recently were proletarians. Not Capitalists.

>>15220810

What's irrational about what I said? I made some assumptions, you are welcome to refute them if they were wrong.

>>15220711
>In free love people dont have preferences and everyone is a winner
>People dont find relationships more fulfilling based on how exclusive they percieve it
>Hippie communes didnt end up with people were becoming exclusive with eachother when they aged and formed relationships after realizing they only initially joined because of sex.
>Emotional relationships arent about possesive perceptions
Im sorry butterfly, i may agree with you on anti-libertarian shit but these promises of "free love" are mostly fake and not meant for all people. In fact most of them only survive because of the gist of rebelion and difference they carry that inflate people's egos.

>>15220694
>Austrian Economics

>>15220694
>Hehehe let me post a completely different theory of economics and labour that is even more outdated and pwned than ever to debunk another theory that has nothing to do with mine or even shares my fallacious neoclassical axioms.
>Karl-Friedrich Israel
hahahahah

>>15219758
looks can be deceiving, that's one thing the image is conveying

>>15219742
this is funny

>>15220868
People pair up, stick together for a while, fall out of love. They get sore feelings for idiotic reasons and social norms. The peer pressures of these social norms make them second guess themselves.
Some places a woman catches her husband cheating on her and they scream and yell at each other but forgive and forget it as it’s considered natural, or sometimes even switch to open relationships.
Marriage is a stupid institution, and your(?) group, the lonely males, suffer for it.
Now I said “freer love”. As I don’t expect a world of people never making committed connections and passing from one bed to the next in orgiastic fantasy. But I do believe we could have a world more relaxed, self assured and genuinely loving

>>15219168
I'll never get the appeal of LTV. I understand that emotional satisfaction trumps economics, but I just don't get what it actually does for people.

>>15220810

Wow 24 whole people? Forget about the millions that died under the Soviet regime I guess. Capitalism is done.

>>15219498
>No. Because the 'dictator' is hard to replace,
What? Why?

>>15219714
>I find something funny therefore I laugh

>>15219168
>the most evil
Not necessarily, but certainly the stupidest and most annoying.

Hang on everyone, what does this have to do with literature?

>>15221150
Political theory is most often built in literature.

>>15221165
The sticky specifies that politics is for /pol/. Besides, "why are <people I disagree with> such bad people?" is hardly intellectual political theory rooted in texts.

>>15220987
>People pair up, stick together for a while, fall out of love.
That is true and doesnt deny that people like to have them as exclusive
>They get sore feelings for idiotic reasons and social norms.The peer pressures of these social norms make them second guess themselves.
Being sad because someone betrayed your trust and gave you a false sense of exclusiveness and of how much they love you isnt idiotic. People will always in someway link sex with love and exclusiveness with emotional love aswell, so separating and deterritorializing this is very hard.
>Marriage is a stupid institution, and your(?) group, the lonely males, suffer for it.
Yes im pretty sure that if i get the chance to fuck some married woman that is in a open relationship i will get less lonely.
In a serious note, i agree that marriage is a stinky institution that people engage with only for material benefits and very often end up with the male side getting the short end of the stick.
But ending it doesnt mean people will want open relationships nor that the "lonely males" will be happier, again people like the commitments and exclusive relations.
Same way wealthier doesnt mean happier, more sex also doesnt mean happier. You can hire all the prostitutes and have all the hookups you want and still be very lonely.

>>15221150
/lit/ is de facto a politics and philosophy board, since the intended boards for those are so shit.

>>15221252
>politics boards are shit
>let's make /lit/ a politics board
Good idea retard

>>15221259
I didn't say I support it, it's just how it is. People want to discuss politics, /pol/ is shit, so they take it elsewhere.

>>15221286
Whatever the reason, /lit/ is not for politics. People should go to twitter or /pol/ if they want to circlejerk over this retarded shit.

>>15221294

Then why don't you stop bumping the thread you literal waste of bandwidth?

>>15221326
I'm saging, faggot.

>>15221095
>Soviet regime
>Classless

>>15221344

>Real communism has never been tried

>>15221326
>>15221336
bump

>>15221349
It hasn't but I'm sure you have an argument against it lol

>>15221095
If you talk about the deaths from socialism under the Soviets, you have to do the same with the Germans and the British, and in modern Africa.
This isn't really a case of whataboutism, so much as me discouraging getting into discussions where is will come up.

>>15221404
>and in modern Africa
pls

>>15221404

>Dying of war, dysentery, malaria is the same as being literally killed by your state for owning property.
>Africa

Just...

>>15221518
If that war and low quality life is created by capitalism then it can be attributed to it.
The stage for the collapse of most of Subsaharan Africa was set by capitalism.

>>15221560
>The stage for the collapse of most of Subsaharan Africa was set by capitalism.
do you really want to talk about SSA

>>15221564
Not any more than just using it as an example.
It'd be a rabbit hole that we'd spend hours on, and frankly, I'm not interested in doing that right now.

>>15221560

You can't really be this stupid right? You think that without capitalism we just magically have high quality of life?
What does SSA collapse even mean? There were no states, there always was war, and predators, and disease. Capitalism isn't the thing that makes bad things appear, tyranny is, nature is.
I hope you're baiting.

>>15221181
>why are <people I disagree with> such bad people?
This is the fundamental premise of roughly 99% of all political texts

>>15219742
the fashy sounds like a good guy

>>15221592
The extraction of resources and the purposeful breakdown of existing political boundaries that characterizes colonialism was caused by capitalism.
I don't imagine that without colonization Africa would be on the level of Norway like some idiots do, but I do believe that its obvious that it'd be in a far better state than it is now.

>>15221615
It doesnt really matter whether the guy on the left or right is the good guy, or that neither of them are. The point of the pic is that one of them is actively and successfully trying to persuade others to his side using arguments and data (flawed or not), while the other is choosing to back off and just smugly pretend theyre better than the person for even asking. One is a winning strategy, the other is not.

>>15221621

The extraction of resources that they literally did almost nothing with since the dawn of humanity? Nice cope.

>>15221349
Yes it has. But not during the USSR.

>>15221518
Time for the average american to look at his own sins.
What have you done to the native indians anglo, was it communism? Same for the australian aboriginals, was is communism?
USSR was State Capitalism. But liberal Capitalism (america), also has tons of blood on their hands.

>>15221649
Mansa Musa doesn't real I guess.
Mali, Timbuktu, the Ghana Empire, Great Zimbabwe, all never existed either.
Subsaharan Africa was behind most of the rest of the world, I will agree with you on that. But it was far from just a bunch of hunter gatherers running around chasing ostriches.
There were proper Iron Age Kingdoms throughout the continent that were almost totally wiped out during colonialism. It was nearly apocalyptic.

>>15221753

>Settling in a foreign country and going to war with the native populace is the same as literally killing your own citizens by the millions for no reason other than 'lol u own things'

>>15221772

>List of nations that collapsed in the middle ages with the exception of Mali which collapsed from internal strife in the mid 17th century.
>Wiped out during colonialism

Is this the power of American education?

>>15221875
>Settling in a foreign country and going to war with the native populace is the same as literally killing your own citizens by the millions for no reason other than 'lol u own things'
No, you are right, it's literally worse. Enough of this shit. Capitalism is responsible for WWI and WWII. That's it. 52 millions death.

>>15219168
I fucking hate libertarians so much. If they would actually take their principles seriously at least they would be anarchist, which are much more decent people.
Even fascists are better.

>>15221875
No, American Education doesn't cover anything from Africa beyond Mali if you are very lucky.
Thats how we end up with people like you.
If we want to talk about the effects of colonialism, then we can just point to the successor state to Great Zimbabwe, the Kingdom of Mutapa which was directly wiped out by the Portuguese and the other Iron Age kingdoms in the area that were fighting for dominance in East Africa. As the Portuguese acted in the area they broke apart the political systems that stabilized the area and then extracted the resources that people lived off of in the area.

>>15222071

>Iron Age kingdoms in the area that were fighting for dominance in East Africa

This is fair and good

>Portugal joins the fight

This is bad and evil

I'm not American by the way. You think I would say 'American education' if I was American?

>>15222061
Libertarians transition to fascism in a heartbeat when some authoritarian cock starts gaining traction. They are essentially bootlicking worms, waiting for the right sole to taste

>>15219168
>they want people to live like ants.
Ants are the prime example of communism and collectivism.
>Are Right Libertarians the most evil people in the world?
Yes, so? If your meme morality is basically "self bad, muh community (read "community" as "the state") good", then yes, we are evil.
>most grotesque
That would be left libertarians and their gaping holes where their penises used to be.
>I think fascists are better people than them.
I wonder what sort of mental gymnastics it took to reach that.

social democracy with a mixed economy is the only fair and just system