/lit/ - Literature

>>17695347
>to much empirical research is dangerous because it might undermine faith in received liberal superstitions

>>17695347
reporting in

>>17695464
>comunism has never been attempted
>It wasn't real communism

>>17695347
I am amazed how atheist need to rely on ''studies'' to debunk socialism. So here the quick way to do it. The fantasy of the hedonists is that hedonists will hug each other once all their desires are met.
This is why marxism is materialism, ie reducing everything to material conditions and money, and why they push for more and more cheap goods.

hedonists get acclimated to their current situation, but they need more and more pleasures and less and less hardship to feel happy, otherwise they get depressed.

This is why atheists (who are hedonists) confuse happiness with having free stuff, free goods and services.
According to marxists, people are happy only they have the material conditions for it.

Liberals define freedom and happiness with an opulence of goods, an orgy of sense pleasures and they call this progress.

Okay, but since hedonists need bigger and bigger breakthrough to ease their life, they get depressed when those breakthroughs do not happen, like it has been the case since the 80s.
They freak out when there is a recession and they whine that progress stagnates.

For 2 centuries atheists could hype their human rights has progress and the right side of history, because human rights is just giving people more and more of an easy life.
However it is never enough.

>>17695481
This is another regurgitated conservative one liner I see all the time, and it’s a good litmus test that the person saying this a) doesn’t know what communism is outside of the western propaganda they’re dealt and b) they don’t want to learn anything about it

>>17695534
name a single modern communist nation today that isn't a third world failed state.

>but china
china uses free market economics, they're a totalitarian capitalist nation.

>>17695479
There's literally noting more useless and irrelevant than microeconomics


>>17695481
If you can demonstrate that historically fine but you don't need myths for that

>>17695527
All Marxist regimes were based on austerity, if you think North Korea is governed by hedonism you're wrong

>>17695543
Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society. So when people tell you this hasn’t been attempted, they’re right. Socialism has, which is the set up and “road” to communism, though socialism has worked to some extents, the U.A’s insistent meddling in foreign affairs (like Cuba with trade embargoes) fucks things up, and people like you and other conservatives can go “LOOK THERES YOUR SOCIALISM, FAILED FAILED BAD BAD ME NO LIKEY” and not give any thought to the insistent sabotage of these Socialist countries. I wonder why that is, huh? Must just be evil, trust the U.S. they will keep you safe from ebil socialism

>>17695464
>Austrian economics
>Empirical research

>>17695609
that's a fucking retarded utopia even high school kids can understand why is a fucked up magical fantasy that only can exist in anime.

>>17695629
It’s literally how we used to live you fucking spacker. We’ve been living as primitive communists far longer than capitalism has been around. Read some books on the subject of history, stack them high, and hang yourself for being such a waste of brain matter

>>17695645
Name a single historical period without money, class diferentiation based on specialization of labour and a state.

>but muh primitive people
do u think a modern society can run like a tribal group on random naked indigenous faggots in the middle of the rain forest?

>>17695645
>we used to live
so you want to go back to like how stone age people lived?

>>17695659
Not him but yes pre-history obviously. The question is can technological development continue without everyone becoming NEETs?

>>17695705
so you want to live in worse conditions than the poorest african countries right now?

>>17695708
No? It's just most monetarized jobs could disappear and living standards wouldn't be much effected. Class can keep diminishing as boundaries and norms become more blurry, professional specialization become hobbies and state power withers as allegiances dissolve into cultural politics or whatever.

>>17695784
that's not what happens retard.

We now need more years of education to be a functioning worker.

You basically need to get a PHD to have working knowledge of a field today.

>>17695796
>We now need more years of education to be a functioning worker.
Most of those credentials aren't necessary and jobs don't really matter

>>17695821
>jobs don't really matter

Yes, because any human activity nowadays requires more time of specialization nowadays, not less.

You can't become a chess master today in a week.

>>17695677
Yes. You do realise we wouldn’t just discard all of the technological advancements we’ve made? Get cavemen out of your brain

>>17695708
Bro we’re already living under terrible conditions for a first world country, or are you so privileged you cannot see beyond your own material conditions?

>>17695629
You failed to address the verifiable U.S. meddling in other countries affairs and instead subbed in an argument that means nothing

>>17695837
>>17695845
how do u have a classless society without having specialized workers because you need a shit ton of time to learn some jobs, whose some are more valuable because of mere market forces of supply and demand?

Having specialized workers like surgeons and airplane pilots, requires the existance of economic classes.

You can't simply put a random person to do the job off a guy that has spend 20 years doing that other job.

The same guy a random person can't in one week replace a professional classical pianist that have been practicing since he was a kid.
And this pianists can't replace a surgeon.

Again, the classless society implies there's not specialized labour.

>>17695845
delusional. even the shittiest first world country has living standards monumentally greater than even the richest african states

>>17695857
>Having specialized workers like surgeons and airplane pilots, requires the existance of economic classes.
Except it doesn’t, it requires education and being taught how to do these things. Education doesn’t have to be class based as it is now, good learning shouldn’t just be available to those who can afford it, and that’s kind of the point.

>>17695863
I live in the UK and there are tent cities. I know there are in America in LA all because people can’t afford healthcare/houses/basic provisions. Unironically go outside NEET

>>17695872
ok, do u realize economic classes exist because of wage diferences and other social status diferences?

like classical pianists class will always have a higher income and economic status than the jannitor class that clean the streets.

>>17695872
P U B L I C S C H O O L!

you titfaced nudibranch

>>17695881
i live in the uk too and if you think that's even comparable to african states then you're retarded. it's better to be poor and homeless in the uk or usa than in nigeria or rwanda. there's a reason why millions are desperate to cross the mediterranean sea

>>17695882
Im aware, a doctor would earn more than a janitor under socialism, under communism neither would have to worry about income gaps, they’d just do it because they were taught/wanted to learn how to do it and it needed to be done

>>17695784
then a warlord comes along and establishes a feudal state

>>17695829
ok you can claim that but quantify it and making the case is going to be problematic

>>17695857
Specialization doesn't require classes. The way Marxists use the term is to refer to ownership relations. Everyone could be a worker without shareholders "financing" their activity. People are of course interested in different things but you should be claiming without a monetary incentive no one will do most things people want/need. Obviously some sectors can be totally demonetized e.g. see wikipedia replacing enclyopedias. Communism isn't possible as long as most things won't keep functioning without monetary reimbursement

>>17695882
Those are both workers and in theory their wage rates will equilibrate over the long run since if prices are to high people will move from lower paying jobs to higher (but theory is often wrong). If CEOs are being paid to much janitors will reskill and compete in the CEO marketplace

>>17695898
Learn reading comprehension, I didn’t say it was directly comparable, I’m saying for a healthy society mass homelessness and poverty is bad, agreed?

>>17695933
and this is why doctors in cuba earns the same as taxi drivers and eventually flee the country to places where they make more.

>>17695940
that's stupid because is thanks to the capitalist class that owns the capital that "idea guys" and entrepreneurs can make their "idea" a reality.

Let's say you have an idea for a cancer cure, that requires 500 million dollars to be developed.
Whose gonna donate that money/capital?
The rich people.

Commies don't understand the bond market or the natural consequences of the current momentum the world must experience (causes of events which predate communism) as a result of actions which led to the sovereign debt crises of the late 19th century.

The political expressions and ideologies formed by those without the context of pic related can be discarded as conjectural drivel and would be indicative that the malfactor is not yet ready to join the adult conversation.

>>17695970
Someone who can cure cancer might not be able to get the loans he needs under capitalism. Money is just a means for rationing real resources, you don't need rich people for mobilizing things. That's not to say the alternatives are necessarily better. Obviously people can be tricked into doing things by cult like figures who can make people do what they want just with their charisma. In theory money is conservative and keeps people from going all in on retarded dangerous ideas.

>>17696013
I don't understand what point you're trying to make, sovereign debt was due in gold in the 19th century... most countries that matter aren't trying to peg things today

>>17695347
I personally know a PHD in economics who is a marxist and also works in the economic regulatory sector.

>>17695481
You’ll notice most stringent marxists believe socialism has been attempted and defend/celebrate the gains and successes of previously and currently existing socialist societies. Cope because china is beating yo ass LOL

>>17696057
Again, why would someone loan 500 millions to treat cancer without some expectations of some return on their investment?

>>17696076
china is a capitalist system

>>17696013
Why do you preface your post with “commies don’t understand x”? It is very obvious you have not even done surface level research into marxian economics, because this is talked about and researched often.

>>17696084
China is a socialist system. Xi Jinping (pbuh) has proven it.

>>17696093
is a totalitarian commie party with a free market system.

>>17696077
Under capitalism there's no reason without reference to relative returns. If I had 500 million dollars I'd buy bitcoin and not go into financing risky inventions lol
Under a non-capitalist system there would be no price or return so the questions involved would be totally different.

>>17696109
again, risk is relative.

bitcoin is extremely risky for a corporation who specializes in making medicaments.

>>17696120
Experimental medical machinery is much more risky than bitcoin and with lower relative returns

>>17696175
risk is relative to your field of expertise.

It's simply safer for a company with 50 years of experience in a market to just stay there than move to another market where they don't know nothing.

>>17696198
> in a market
If you don't care about and beat relative returns you're not going to be in any market for long. It's not safer to sit on your hands while everyone else finds ways to radically increase their income.

>>17695481
Yeah anon, Marxist-Leninists agree with Anarchists and with Leftcommunists and with Maoists and with Trostkyist and with Dengists and with Hoxhaists and with Luxemburgists.

They all agree on the same definition of communism and they all agree on the same point of views. Damn boy you solved socialism! You solved politics!

>>17696242
Again, you think again that markets compete between them.

Which is kind of not true.

The economic players are in competition among the same market.
But markets aren't necesarelly in competition between them.

If a market is getting beat by another, like cellphones destroying KODIAK, it simply means that market is obsolete technologically.

>>17696330
>Dude, our failed ideologies are so diferent
Anything else beyond free market has failed and is doomed to failure.

in academia marxism is just used as a blanket term for any criticism of business or capitalism in general. if you make a sociological study of the effect on livelihood in a community when the local factory shuts down- you are a marxist

>>17695884
bruh aren't you Amerilard how can you say public school if you guys get in debt just to go to college lmao

>>17695970
>and this is why doctors in cuba earns the same as taxi drivers and eventually flee the country to places where they make more.
No? The reason it's because it's a command economy that is very poorly managed by the group of oligarchs that now control Cuba. They don't really have workers ownership of the means of production, and their economic interests are at the interest of the State.
Not only is that not communism but it's indistinguishable from any larper-loved dictatorship.

>>17696336
>capitalism = free market
Americans have such a garbage education holy shit. And I come from a third world country so that's impressive.

>>17696369
and ask yourself why every attempt at comunism has ended up like Cuba/north korea/venezuela?

>>17696378
I'm not american.

But free markets are the economic system of most capitalist nations.

>but muh socialist free market (CHINA)
which is basically another capitalist country by now?

>>17696336
Of course everyone competes for the same ends, maximum returns. Whatever's being produced or not doesn't matter. If you can't win in that game you die. Sectors that provide goods people want can be destroyed by finance regardless of them being technologically relevant or not.

>>17696398
under a free market, corporations have no much power beyond spending money on advertising so the customers buy their products.

Again, the consumer are the ones who hold all the power.
If they don't want to buy a company products, what power has that company?

>>17695645
Then why is it so hard to pull it off? I spent the first two decades of my life in a communist town. My experience of it is that they would blindly defend Stalin and Mao without having ever bothered reading Marx (the mayor offered me a comicbook about Mao when I was a kid, I'm pretty sure I knew as much as him after finishing it). It's strange to see people nowadays acting like it is about applying the theory to real economy. Never did I see them even discussing the idea, they were akin to religious people without a god.

>>17696433
because marxism is a religion, not an economic theory.

It follow the same logic other fundamentalists cults follow.

>>17696424
Consumers don't control credit, they're in fact just as much under control by private assessment for their credit worthiness. Corporations aren't charities they just exist to maximize returns and if it's possible to do that without having to produce consumer goods whatever.

>>17696487
And yet the countries with the highest income just also happen to be the most capistalists?

>>17696507
Yes because capitalism is a global system so the richest and poorest are all involved and Americans can even buy cheap goods produced by communists. If a high income country like America couldn't run a trade deficit with foreigners they'd be a lot poorer in real terms.

>>17696621
so basically communism only works when it produces cheap plastic garbage and food to capistalist countries?

nice.

>>17696633
If you take their propaganda at face value "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a transitionary stage to lay the foundations for a different economic system. America exports the tech/knowledge, China gives back toys and such for now but at some point they won't need to and can reorientate to a more egalitarian system. Of course now they've created so many globally oriented billionaires that's questionable if they're going to give up personal privileges.

>>17696351
>bruh
>debt meme
twitter, "trannuh"