/lit/ - Literature

You already know the answer

>Hitlers concentration camps
Fake, Jews deserved it
>Stalin's Gulags
NOOOOO NOT THE HECKIN KULAKERINOS

>>17544394
>he denied gulags! and was a pedophile! this is soooooo problematic on so many levels! I'm literally shaking. brb going to post on twitter to get this dude CANCELLED. this is NOT okay.

Jean Baptiste Sartre is a fucking pseud. You all know.

>>17544394
>Gulags
Rehabilitative system of labor camps which prohibited solitary confinement, allowed inmates to live with their spouses, and granted inmates the right to complete university level education during their sentence. The maximum jail sentence was 10 years, as it was considered inhumane to jail someone for longer than that.

>>17544394
>why is deceit the natural condition of Leftists?
look up The Big Other

>>17544512
>gets gulaged for being a wrecker
>W-WAIT DADDY STALIN NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IM NOT A NAZI PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!

>>17544551
grow up

Also no one loves Sartre today other than art hoes lmao.

>>17544476
I take great comfort in knowing that a massive number of gulag prisoners were Old Bolsheviks. Reading about the NKVD torturing confessions out of Old Bolsheviks really gets my Schadenfreude going.

read Michael Parenti

>>17544588
>Reading about the NKVD torturing confessions out of Old Bolsheviks
Source?

>>17544494
I bet if it were nazis instead you'd be crying to get them cancelled

>>17544598
Literally just open any history book, check what happened to Bukharin, Tukhachevsky etc. Tukhachevsky professed his loyalty to Stalin even as he was being shot, though he is actually one of the tragic cases since he was genuinely based.

>retarded zealots trying to cover up for the fuck ups of other retarded zealots for the good of a vague "cause" they never contributed to and will never contribute too
Good morning, I hate politics.

>>17544663
Most history textbooks are criminally biased. Not just on Soviet history either, I have never read a history book that didn't try to push some agenda.

It's incredible how under-represented actual proletarians were among the Bolsheviks. Just Jews and disaffected bourgeois. Would have been embarrassing for them if they had any self awareness or shame.

>>17544394
if you go back to marx you'll find that he rejected truth and objective facts. for marx it's impossible to step outside of society and analyze anything objectively. MAN IS SOCIETY, SOCIETY IS MAN to marx. even nature to marx was just a result of society in the current stage of history. honesty is impossible when you think like this.
of course this attitude has left its marks over many, but not all of his ideological descendants, direct or indirect, watered out or pure.

Or maybe I'm just naive, and this is how all ideologues are bound to act no matter their ideology? Or maybe it's a combination.

>>17544728
this has been true for basically all marxist movements. from the days of marx himself and onwards.

>>17544591
>read lying, dishonest propagandist to understand other lying, dishonest propagandist
you will never pass.

>>17544728
So Stalin was right in labelling basically every other Old Bolshevik a traitor and executing them? Because even Stalin didn't deny executing them. They were subject to very public trials.

>>17544728
That's why you read broadly, study the context and utilise your brain, anon.
>>17544755
Not just Marxists, everybody lies except for me and the people I like (whom I like because they don't lie). I'm based.
>>17544734
After the purges a lot of peasants filled the ranks. Khruschev is a good example. Mega peasant.
>>17544745
Not naive, just stupid, anon.

>>17544774
>>read lying, dishonest propagandist to understand other lying, dishonest propagandist
Ironic considering that's what Orwell was.

>>17544755
meant for >>17544734
>>17544728
at this point, do you have enough self-insight to know you're a cult member or not?
>>17544787
>except for me and the people I like
yep honesty is impossible. therefore there's nothing wrong with lying. we shouldn't even try.
>Not naive, just stupid, anon.
doesn't mean much coming from a completely blind ideologue, probably from leftypol as well.
>>17544796
because he opposed your side who cannot be wrong, who is correct by definition.

>>17544776
>So Stalin was right
Yeah

>>17544394
So we can lie about the concentration camps as well?

>>17544774
>man volunteers to fight for "the Reds" against fascism in the Spanish civil war
>grows to like Spain
>grows to like the Reds
>grows to like his friends
>risks his life for the Spanish socialists
>the Marxist-Leninists take control of the state, sabotage the war effort, suppress the anarchist organisations, literally try to kill him and purge all of his friends
>man becomes an "anti-Stalinist" (not even anti-communist)
>some communist faggot whines about it
Holy fuck, beyond compehension.
>>17544796
Seething leftoid pseud brainlet.

>>17544774
Don't like Parenti that much but he is right about Orwell there.

>>17544817
>because he opposed your side who cannot be wrong, who is correct by definition.
I'm ambivalent towards the Soviet Union as well as British propagandists.
>>17544822
>Leftoid
Orwell was a left anti-communist.

>>17544819
Doesn't speak very well for your revolutionary movement then if 90% of its senior leaders turn out to have been apparent criminal traitors deserving of death.

>>17544817
>yep honesty is impossible. therefore there's nothing wrong with lying. we shouldn't even try.
You must have misread.
>doesn't mean much coming from a completely blind ideologue, probably from leftypol as well.
I am an Evola-tier rightist lmao. You're just stupid because you understand nothing about Marx but choose to mouth off anyway. If anything at all, Marxism draws on positivism and Hegelianism. Marx made a systematic attempt at objective study and analysis of reality. This was the whole point of his work, of "scientific socialism" and of dialectical materialism. I bet you're some sort of fucking "centrist" or liberal "nationalist" too. A simp for bourgeois ghouls and their shitty system with no understanding of how destructive it is to traditional values.

>I'm so smart. I know what is best for the masses.

>>17544841
>Orwell was a left anti-communist.
Yes, as I said he was a communist himself, although of the anarchist type. I don't see how this makes you any less of a seething leftoid pseud brainlet.

>>17544394
Gulags are just prisons, every society had prisons. Even solzhenitsyn got cancer treatment when he was in the gulag. It might be easy to find it barbaric from the privilege of living in a developed western nation, but you got to remember that Russia was an agrarian shithole before they became a highly industrialized world power under socialism.
Of course if a western nation would undergo a socialist revolution the prison system wouldn't look like the gulags of soviet russia.

>>17544859
Not sure where you got the idea that I'm a leftist or seething in any capacity, I was merely pointing out the facts. You're the one who seems to be getting disproportionately defensive over Orwell, who is pretty much factually used as anti-communist propaganda at the high school level.

>>17544847
>>17544847
>Marxism draws on positivism and Hegelianism
marx "historical materialism" is opposed to what he considered naive "enligthenment materialism". hegelianism is obviously opposed to objectivity and clear thinking.
>Marx made a systematic attempt at objective study and analysis of reality
he didn't. his entire worldview denies the possibility of this. pic rel quote isn't just something he threw out there, it's an integral part of his worldview. he said this because he denied the dichotomy between social knowledge and acting. that's a profoundly anti-objective view.
>This was the whole point of his work, of "scientific socialism" and of dialectical materialism
it wasn't. "scientific socialism" was supposed to oppose his own to that of those who analyzed the flaws of capitalism and tried to derive a more moral system. this attitude of the "utopians" is more objective than marxism, because the "utopians" did not the deny the objectivity of knowledge and analysis as it is done in marx.
>dialectical materialism
utterly confused, garbage entirely unscientific idea.
>I bet you're some sort of fucking "centrist" or liberal "nationalist" too. A simp for bourgeois ghouls and their shitty system with no understanding of how destructive it is to traditional values.
you're not very bright.

you have a surface level understanding of marxism and you have been hypnotized by the words. calling something "scientific" doesn't make it so. it's just a word. stop speaking about marxism.

>>17544859
Nt him, but Orwell was a precursor to the faggots in the West.
>born to well off family
>memed into guilt
>spends youth living with oppressed© society and frequenting cafes with fellow socialists and social democrats
>joins armed mobs in Spain because muh fascism
>conservatives win because his mob is more interested in starting battles without establishing medical triage, shooting at their own side by accident, not shooting at nationalists because of scary wood dolls in windows
>lose war because communists carry off country's gold and draw back to appease France
>STALIN!!!

>>17544883
>Gulags are just prisons, every society had prisons. Even solzhenitsyn got cancer treatment when he was in the gulag. It might be easy to find it barbaric from the privilege of living in a developed western nation, but you got to remember that Russia was an agrarian shithole before they became a highly industrialized world power under socialism.
Untrue, Russia had a massive industry by the first world war already. Look up their production figures on war materiel in comparison to France, for example.
>>17544918
He's literally a communist, retard, he does not write "anti-communist propaganda". The reason I am calling you a leftoid is because leftoids often do this thing with Orwell which is to not learn the first thing about him at all, then to call him a reactionary or an anti-communist when he was nothing of the like.
>>17544929
>he didn't. his entire worldview denies the possibility of this. pic rel quote isn't just something he threw out there, it's an integral part of his worldview. he said this because he denied the dichotomy between social knowledge and acting. that's a profoundly anti-objective view.
It is an integral part of his worldview, but it has absolutely no bearing on Marxist objectivity or lack thereof. If you believe otherwise, you will have to prove it. I also fail to see where at all Marx would be "denying the dichotomy between social knowledge and acting". Obviously, according to the Marxist concepts of "base and superstructure", social "knowledge" associated with the superstructure is in fact the action and product of the ruling class. Marx, however, was not a ruler. He conceived of himself as a scientist and his goal was to formulate an objective and complete science. That this science had obvious implications about action affects the genuine nature of his approach not in the least.
>it wasn't. "scientific socialism" was supposed to oppose his own to that of those who analyzed the flaws of capitalism and tried to derive a more moral system. this attitude of the "utopians" is more objective than marxism, because the "utopians" did not the deny the objectivity of knowledge and analysis as it is done in marx.
He opposed "scientific socialism" to revolutionary idealism, sloganeering etc. Marxism lays claim to objective knowledge, it does not deny objective knowledge at all. Dialectical materialism is posited as the ultimate truth.
>utterly confused, garbage entirely unscientific idea.
It was neither confused nor garbage nor even unscientific. It was a good attempt. It is still wrong, of course, but it was certainly a rigorous formulation of history.
>you're not very bright.
pic rel

>>17544394
Because this obviously problematic stance happened before cancel culture, at a time when people would not discard the whole body of work of a someone because he had one terribly mistaken point of view about something (and blind adoration of the ussr plagued most french intellectuals of the time).

>>17544965
He was a bit goofy in some respects but I don't see what makes him a precursor to western faggotry. In fact, a lot of the things he writes about are very nuanced and interesting. He also writes polemics against the "communist intellectuals" in Britain etc who were the real bugman prototypes imo. He seems to have had a knack for the working class mentality and conditions, at least.

>>17545043
>but it has absolutely no bearing on Marxist objectivity or lack
it does.
>I also fail to see where at all Marx would be "denying the dichotomy between social knowledge and acting"
cause you don't know anything about him.
>associated with the superstructure is in fact the action and product of the ruling class. Marx, however, was not a ruler
not just true for the ruling classes. also true for the proletariat. different for the proletariat though because the proletarian consciousness is the realization of history and vice versa. but not objective in any way still. look at his concept of "ideology".
>He conceived of himself as a scientist
he didn't.
>It was neither confused nor garbage nor even unscientific
it was because none of the marxist could ever say to what extent it was true. engels "in the last resort" is instructive.
>It was a good attempt
it wasn't.
>it was certainly a rigorous formulation of history
it wasn't.

this is waste of time on my part because you 1) can't think and 2) don't have any understanding of what we're discussing in the first place. calling something scientific doesn't make it so.

>>17545177
"This was a waste of my time" he says, as he seethes and copes after wasting my time. This is why I don't like talking to Marx hateposters, there's no fruitful conversation to be had either for or against Marxism, since you guys don't even know what it is you are criticising and just recycle tired rhetoric for your purposes.

>>17545202
it's an unproductive conversation because again 1) you can't think, you can't critique or analyze ideas and see beyond mere words like "scientific". 2) you have no deeper understanding of what we're discussing.

you take him to be "right" or "made a valid attempt" as a given. this is untrue. his thinking isn't just wrong, it's worse than wrong.

>>17545043
>>17544883
I give 90% odds that by century XXII, the USA of today will be described as an agrarian shithole, because how else did it become full of commies.

Also, kek at an 'agrarian shithole' having an 'industrial workers' revolution'.

>>17544728
You can read NKVD orders. Cross check convicts with the party lists.

>>17545246
>1) you can't think, you can't critique or analyze ideas and see beyond mere words like "scientific"
>"Source: my ass"
>2) you have no deeper understanding of what we're discussing.
>"Source: also my ass"
>you take him to be "right" or "made a valid attempt" as a given. this is untrue. his thinking isn't just wrong, it's worse than wrong.
Because you don't like him, sure. He's wrong and his perspective is wrong. The work he put in to analyse capitalism and its functioning on a social, economic and political level? That was great.
>>17545253
>I give 90% odds that by century XXII, the USA of today will be described as an agrarian shithole, because how else did it become full of commies.
I doubt this, the USA is simply too entrenched as the greatest industrial (or perhaps today post-industrial) power in history.
>Also, kek at an 'agrarian shithole' having an 'industrial workers' revolution'.
Yeah, that caused a lot of keks in the communist circles of the 1920s as well. No one really knew what to do because everybody was a predicting a "people's revolution" in the West with its "advanced material conditions", but in fact socialist revolutions occurred in largely agrarian countries like Russia and China. It should be noted that Russia was a very agrarian country, but it was hardly an "agrarian shithole", since its industrial centres were very developed.

>>17544394
Here! Let me squash you! Yes! . . . I see his photos, those bug eyes . . . that hook . . . that slobbering leech . . . he’s a cestode! What won’t he invent, this monster.

An assassin he is, he wants to be one, that’s understood, but brilliant? Brilliant tiny turd of my ass? Hmmm? . . . That remains to be seen . . . yes, to be sure, that could blossom . . . make itself known . . . but J. B. S.? His embryo eyes? His mean and petty shoulders? That fat little gut . . . and philosopher!

What miracles you will do when you will blossom as a True Monster! I already see you out of the asshole, playing the flute, a real little flute! Marvelously! . . . already almost a real artist!

Damned J. B. S.

>>17545296
>The work he put in to analyse capitalism and its functioning on a social, economic and political level? That was great.
it wasn't. it doesn't stand up to precise, critical scrutiny on a purely theoretical basis at all. you don't have to pay lipservice to marx anymore.
bertrand russell was absolutely right to call him muddleheaded.

>>17545202
>This is why I don't like talking to Marx hateposters

Presumably because they reveal the depth of your pseuditry and deflate that retarded M*rxnigger ego that you all seem to have.

>>17544394
what's wrong with gulags?

>>17545324
>it wasn't. it doesn't stand up to precise, critical scrutiny on a purely theoretical basis at all.
I don't care about the theoretical basis my dude, read the Brumaire. Masterpiece.
>bertrand russell was absolutely right to call him muddleheaded.
>retarded analytical anglo
Yeah, I figured it's something like this.

>>17545338
I can't watch porn and get orders from grubhub there

>>17545337
I am not a Marxist, I am anti-communist. I just think that a lot of the backlash against Marx comes from seething libtards.

>>17544394
Stalin’s gulags were fine

>>17545348
wrong
t. fascoid

>>17545340
>>retarded analytical anglo
well there you go. you deny objective knowledge and facts and precise thinking too. why even try to debate me then? is it just the triggers in your head going "must defend!". this has been a very good demonstration of my initial points.

>>17545338
Look up Kolyma and Nazino.

>>17544394
>french “intellectual”
>extreme dishonesty
Pottery. However this really does show how similar fascists and leftists are, I’m sure liberals would rush to deny their own atrocities if I knew what they were

>>17545389
A lot of Marx's work can take on a completely different nature when looked at from the point of view of a different ethos and different values. Keep that in mind.
>>17545404
My thought process was that you may be one of those many boomer-style conservatives who just bash Marx because that's what their public "intellectuals" tell them to do, so my hope was that I might be able to convince you in the utility of some Marxist work in preserving and strengthening the situation of literally every normal person that isn't a banker. Unfortunately, it seems that your actual problem is adherence to analytical philosophy, which is a terminal disease that I am helpless to cure. If I had known you were a fan of the analytics, I wouldn't have responded at all.

>>17545467
>wrong because belonging to philosophical tradition that offends my fee fees
is not an argument.

it's funny that you originally chimped out because I criticized marxism for being intellectually dishonest and confused and imprecise and now you admit (and show) that you're actively opposed to intellectual honesty and precision.
I was right to say that you reacted on pure instinct to defend marx.
you can't think, you're worthless.

>>17545521
>is not an argument.
I do not argue against Analyticals, I know where my disagreements with them lie, but that's all the more reason why I think arguing with them is futile.
>it's funny that you originally chimped out because I criticized marxism for being intellectually dishonest and confused and imprecise and now you admit (and show) that you're actively opposed to intellectual honesty and precision.
There is irony in you associating "intellectual honesty and precision" with the Analytical tradition, since you do so out of the exact same "instinct" that you criticise me for allegedly displaying in my defence of Marx.

>>17545654
just put your tail behind your legs and crawl away. you've already admitted that you don't care about the theory. but that was what you started screeching at me about for criticizing.
you're a joke, you've completely exposed yourself and the type of person that still tries to defend marx.

>>17544394
Look at this mug, look at his actions and the causes he advocated, and tell me physiognomy isn't real.

>>17545731
I went back to reread our conversation and I still maintain that your claim about Marx and objectivity is completely void of substance. At the same time, yes, I do not care too much for most of Marxist theory. "Surplus value", "commodity fetishism", blah blah blah. Those are the uninteresting elements of Marx.

>>17544556
>>17544512
>>17544494
Samefag

>>17544598
>>17544728

Nigga are you retarded?

>>17545074
>>17544965
I heard in one of Jonathan Bowdens lectures that there used to be a conspiracy/rumour going round that Orwell was assassinated in hospital. Something about a nurse seeing a strange man

>>17545767
you should learn how to think and reread marx. or better yet skip the last part, but then also refrain from posting about marxism.

Why does tankie edgelordism seem so lackluster

>>17546233
I have never heard of that idea so I can't offer any comment.
>>17546252
pic rel

>>17545296
>I doubt this, the USA is simply too entrenched as the greatest industrial (or perhaps today post-industrial) power in history.
Seems like it's struggling with an identity crisis amongst many other issues at the moment. A declining majority and smaller pluralities that screech for gibs

>>17546290
Well, yes, but I doubt that there will be a shift to agrarianism.

>>17544394
gulags where based tho

>>17544774
he is not wrong orwel was glownigger

>>17544476
these levels of projection...

>>17546256
cuz tankieism is dead. it's not a real political force. it's just a bunch of internet weirdos who don't go outside.

>>17544394
>paedophile

?

>>17546487
all frogs are canonically pedo

>>17545458
I think liberals are masochistic to the point of fabricating or embellishing war crimes of their own to apologize for.

>>17544394
i prefer charlotte

>>17544663
>Tukhachevsky's family members all suffered after his execution. His wife, Nina Tukhachevskaya, and his brothers Alexandr and Nikolai, both instructors in a Soviet military academy, were all shot. Three of his sisters were sent to the Gulag. His underage daughter was arrested when she reached adulthood and remained in the Gulag until the 1950s

wtf

>>17544394
>slimy paedophile
Citation needed

>>17544745
Another schizo thinking that a belief we can have unmediated access to OBJECTIVE FACTS is necessary for rationality and some kind of cornerstone of Western thought, when it never has been.