/lit/ - Literature

I love you butterfly please have an asexual marriage with me

>>16699731
>not real communism
ok retard

>>16699731
>Simplest answer is that they’re still doing capitalism
This capitalist sector keeps them afloat.

who the fuck calls nordic social democracy "nordic socialism"

Uhm sweety we are doing a corporatism not socialism especially Sweden

Staaaten och kaaaapitaleeett dem sitter i samma bååååt

>>16699731

The real human nature is poverty.
Nobody is born rich, everybody is born poor, naked and fragile.

The question is not about why some countries are poor. But why the riches one are rich in the first place.

Read sugestion: A short history abot men - Hoppe

>>16699731
Go away tranny

>>16700684
americans

>capitalism is human nature, to be in opposition to capitalism is to be in opposition to humanity
>capitalism needs a communist oriented state to keep it on capitalist ever technology augmenting track, meaning they need to break down monopolies and similar so that the capitalist can continue to flourish and not become torpid
>the state can not be the ingenuitive force, but only the amending hand; the state is incapable of being capitalistic and therefore not able to be augmenting of technology
>the coming communist revolution by capital absolving itself into the automatic self perfected technology will not be human anymore, so nothing human will make it out of that near future; technological revolution will come to pass not with a bang but a whimper
>to pretend you have a right to post-capitalist society is supercilious and self-righteous and the first sign of being the biggest enemy to capital
>positive human mindset only needs to be tolerated and promulgated to keep a society for a state that can help capital self augmentize itself off of human ability, while working on surpassing this need
>therefore healthy capitalist societies need to continue to be worked in favor for if the communist (post-capitalist) goal is to be achieved (meaning the ablution from all the ills that are necessarily prevalent in every pre-revolution society)
>a healthy capitalist society needs to be free from distracting ills
>social democratic implementation only need be implemented if their effect will cause a more vital enviroment for capital to further itself; if a social democratic idea would impeed capital it is to be rejected and fought against
>The revolution will never be announced, it simply one day will be. Thus once the revolution comes one will not say "Look, here it is!" or "There it is!" For, the revolution is omnipresent.

>>16699731
Short answer; vertical integration of the southern hemisphere drawing all wealth back to Rome while the northern hemisphere developed more advanced economies

>>16701313
Yeah, I've thought that it has something to do with shit-ton of natural resources, like oil extraction comparable to Arabic countries and historically wood and iron.
Add to this that they were spared the destruction of two world wars and wonder why they actually DO NOT shine economically in world's scale.

>>16701340
commies are surprised that people canjust have food btw

What Americans keep as a utopia, the Nordic countries, are quickly decaying. Just look at Sweden, that country is a disaster already. One can only imagine what it will be like in 20 years. And unfortunately we're following their steps.

>>16701386
Um, it's called Euthanasia, sweaty

>>16699731
something something capitalism
do you never get tired

>>16699731
You will NEVER be a real woman

>>16700687
Pretty much what I said.

>>16700694
The system decides who’s rich or poor. For a short time the opportunity in the Americas allowed for new wealth to come about, but that door has slammed shut a long time ago. Humans are born from a natural state but dumped into an unnatural one.

>>16701298
>capitalism is human nature
Not even gonna finish that trash.

>>16701351
Cappies are also surprised to see that people can just have food too. Free.

>>16701419
IMBECILE

>>16701482
>IMBECILE
I wanted to poast a smug frog in response, but please do elaborate on how every hideously complex socioeconomic and political issue of the world can be boiled down to the fatal flaw of capitalism.

>>16701533
More precisely it is state-capitalism, as the two are inseparable.
And they cover quite a lot in world society and history, do they not? How could they/it fail to not effect everything? We get some liberals in here defending it as the thing that’s improving our so much, yet at the same time it is crushing and killing quite a lot of people and in the end (of this century) it is going to kill us all.
How does every “complex socioeconomic and political” effect our socioeconomic and political lives, is what you’re asking. Adversely is what you mean?

(I wanna go eat)

>>16701575
>How could they/it fail to not effect everything?
I will preface this with the fact that I've decided I disagree with you from the outset and this is completely taken to be a rhetorical dick measuring contest on my part.

With that said, this conceptual state capitalism affects the world to the same extent my nut does when I flush it down the toilet -- It's relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Historical materialism cannot into explaining any sociocultural phenomenon without from the outset deferring to an elusive and circularly defined economical structure, which from a standpoint of "common sense", as you may call it, seems completely delusional as this praxis destroys what would otherwise be contemplated to be massively complex issues with nuances, multiplicities and divisions that interact in ways which escape obvious explanation in economic terms.

>>16701605
In short: I think things are complicated and I think you should think this too

>>16701690
This truth is going to drive you nuts, but really think about it

State-capitalism makes everything needlessly more complex than it already is. Complex and cruel and we can do better without it.

>>16701785
I don't think we're on the same wavelength. I'm not saying that the world is "too complex to grasp at" in the sense of "this can't be solved", I'm saying the complexity of the human environment escapes reduction to a single universalized guilty actor. Marxist reductionism does nothing to do away with the herculean scale of the problem of the human condition as it stands, as you rightly point out, but it does allow for a classification of the problem as being at the hands of the aforementioned actor and its "henchmen" (the bougies, capitalists, middle class, champagne socialists, bootlickers, alt-righters, etc.), which is the point of contention for me. It creates the possibility for a faux-moral highground and an ultimately unfounded position of power from which internet socialists get to soapbox and grandstand. I'm hesitant to conclude this is the objective of marxist pseudomoralism but it happens a *lot* and I've made it my personal project to point it out wherever I see it.

>>16699731
>it’s another “mentally retarded slave moralist cannot conceive of thought outside of moral humanism, and so can never succeed to identify the fault in our societies” chapter
This book is getting really same-y

The real problem with ""socialism"" is that it's too easy to abuse not by the average citizen but by the elites
This is really the only benefit of capitalism is that it puts both parties on very slightly more even ground in terms of their ability to abuse the system and in a way this creates more inequality but also less
How can any sensible person not be intensely skeptical about socialism in the modern era when you know that without a doubt it will easily be gutted and sold to the populace with all of the negatives intact and none of the positives

>>16701386
Sweden is not a disaster no matter how much /pol/ cries about it.

>>16701984
>entire city blocks marked as 'red zone' by UPS
are you sure

>>16701992
Part and parcel of living in a big city.

>>16701865
>a single universalized guilty actor
Capitalism or state-capitalism isn’t a “single actor” it is complex. —But also ephemeral

>>16701984
I’m sure it’s still a wonderful place to live, but the elites are trying to extract all the money and power and it will go the way of the US eventually if we let it

>>16699731
Oh look, it's everyone's least favorite midwit.

People don't work in the absence of outward pressure to do so. Stop deluding yourself.

>>16701907
What do you mean

>>16701907
>How can any sensible person not be intensely skeptical about socialism in the modern era when you know that without a doubt it will easily be gutted and sold to the populace with all of the negatives intact and none of the positives

The people who don't understand this should be forced to work for a government department for a couple years in order to see how poorly everything is done.

>>16702203
Bby. That outward pressure would be the need to eat, stay warm/cool and comfy, and to appease one another. No, not club them over the head and tell them they are property and that money has more value than they. Real “outward pressure”
Stop allowing elites delude you.

>>16699731
How is your incessant, unrelenting fascination with political systems and enterprises of the capitalistic machine not /pol/? Why must you continue to degrade this board with polarizing and irrelevant subjects such as what the peons call the puppeteers governing mechanics? It's contentious and uninspiring. You chalk everything up to argumentative hairsplitting, which I can commend for the purposes of differentiation of particulars and so forth, but it is uninteresting and not germane to the heart of /lit/. You produce things of value that have a demand and are subsequently compensated in the form of gold pieces. GDP+ rather than GDP-, What is the problem?

>>16702494
You bumped it.
I want only to discuss it in the context of TEXTS.
I had a book rec for that thread so here it is.

>>16702511
Fine. I'll scan it. What is the succinct overarching answer to the question presented in the title? Or is it a musing survey over an amalgam of economic principles?

>>16702529
>What is the succinct overarching answer to the question dealt with throughout an entire book
Why is /lit/ constantly filtered by books as a category?

>>16702511
>>16702529
...Actually, more importantly, if your irks and ires with capitalism are well-founded and contain accurate levels of skepticisms: How do you propose a pragmatic solution of switching systems, intuitively and historiographically, this seems to be only achievable through bloodshed and tears, catalyzed by abysmal agricultural yields and the population being "fed-up". The solution seems much too convoluted to happen peacefully and shifting on the whim of logic equally as insurmountable. Something like that. I'm more concerned with the solution rather than the declaration of a systemic problem. Which are not unique, although keen.

>>16702490
>the need to eat, stay warm/cool and comfy, and to appease one another.

Yeah, sure. If you give people that then it'll entirely get rid of all other desires and they won't just continue exploiting one another and resenting their betters. People aren't equal and they never will be, and any system built on the assumed goodwill between unequal people is bound to fail.

I have pity on people like yourself who subscribe to resentment ideology, I really do. You guys wander around like confused animals and build extravagant lies to obscure what's obvious to everyone else.

>>16702547
Books cost money, its how capitalism, supply and demand, etc work. You are creating the same dynamic you argue against and pin it on the filthy lizard people who tug the strings of the economy. To actually PAY for the information I only want to know that the material isn't going to waste my time.

>>16702559
It would only be through bloodshed and tears because the powers that be will make it so.

I propose a non-accumulative currency to augment a failing economy, subsistence (or near it) farming, and general off-the-grid money savers. Ut a general return to villager life, neighborhood life, through direct democracies, mirrored in workplace cooperatives. Peaceful. Sensible. They’ll hate it. But we should hate them and coax the military and police to join us in a not centralized government (as state socialists would do) of DD neighborhoods.
The logic of greed is what will bring the violence. But we have the violence now. The more we can overwhelm them (and they are a tiny lot, it’s their bootlicking zombies we have to defuse) the less bloodshed there will be. But if we don’t act, and soon, extinction approaches.

>>16702563
>Resting and taking time off to write a book is taking advantage of me
>People are too lazy to want to explore and invent. They need sharp knives at their backs to prompt them
You are pitifully wrong.

>>16702749
>People are too lazy to want to explore and invent.

>>16702791

>>16702547
>>16702749
The esoteric economic monopolization brought about by the financial elites of nationalistic capitalism creates a vacuum of trade that produces little to no value while scooping the value up inevitably ending in ruine/collapse/bubbles/tears for the strength of the nation's economy? I.e., the government being in bed with free trade is catastrophic? Am I representing Reinert's points adequately?

Now your wartime jump and the staunch proposition
>The Nordic model is flagging and waning simply because they are still operating under a capitalistic system.
I don't think that is nearly strong enough to be considered as a fair verdict, by and large, though, you know elaboration would be necessary (but that isn't my concern), my point is, and Reinert's point seems to be the cyclicality of economic systems that are only scrapped during crises; systems that are discarded as a result of war - be that losing. A newer system would then be abstractly, but simply, necessary to spiral out from the communistic-capitalistic oscillation and prevent the infinite regress of juggling between two very sick and terminal systems. War. War is much too doomy and gloomy for me, I'll be under a rock while the rest of the species fights for the mind of a few tyrants.

Of course, I have no doubt in my limitations of economics, but - at this point - destroying the progress in either one would be detrimental to society, rather, regulation and proper oversight would be the course I would propose... World War III fought with sticks and stones and all that jazz... I don't think it's an idealization, patchwork and restructuring on a decent enough foundation is a much better route than burning the barn, so to speak, to the ground.

All in all... Human behavior - the greed you speak of - is too interested in economics, from a personal to a nation-wise sense. They are inextricable and undefeatable. Anyhow, the system is too entrenched to turn around... barring war... In an ideal world, I'm sure there is some middle ground between the system, potentially a new one altogether... but for now, it seems a bit too much like eating your cake and having it too.