/lit/ - Literature

>>19578813
Damn, no one?

Hehe cockshott

Anyways go to /his/ if you want to talk about dumb gay pop history nonsense

>>19579428
I thought that was /lit/s specialty? The guy even self proclaims he's a Marxist

>>19579438
Nobody asked gayboy

>>19579479
You keep talking shit I'll give you a big kiss

>>19578813
I DLed it, read his old classic Towards a New Socialism, (yes, lets start up a labor voucher app), and I listen to his YouTube channel. He’s good wonky fun for me. I just have a terrible backlog of books piled in front of it

>>19579556
OK so you didn't read it. Thanks for posting anyway

>>19579593
>Thanks for recommending it and bumping the thread
Yw

https://youtu.be/-U4CZ92ftE4

>>19578813
>labour
>pre-capital
Oh you.

>>19579556
I'll probably regret asking but what's the appeal of socialism? I haven't cared to read any of the literature.

>>19579675
Born into a rightwing family I only ventured into it cautiously. I was led to believe in the evil empires of the USSR and China. But as Bush administration started to make its mess, I looked farther left and started to understand what it was all about. Fortunately found Chomsky, but I don’t what would have happened if I had found Michael Parenti first. Socialism is shadowing capitalism because the Revolutionary age made the people a promise. A promise the state has never kept. Now we have various political schools of thought claiming they’re socialism and they’re doing a program that’ll lead to that promise, but they’re still lying. Socialism is achieved with direct democracy, by the people and for the people. No elite class necessary. How to get there is a bumpy road that needs some steps, but it certainly isn’t the steps China is taking

>>19579675
>the appeal
Without money, corruption itself, and without elitist class structures, we would look forward to tighter, sharper and more responsible communities.
I started reading Thomas Paine when the so-called Arab Spring started. Common Sense is still a great read

>>19579744

refreshing posts to read

what would you say the steps are?

>>19579428
Cockshott is far from a gay pop historian

>>19579989
An app to run non accumulative currency.
(At first a localized supplemental. People will still be expected to pay their taxes)
But broad outreach to get neighborhoods and local businesses together to make decisions on their own. (Groups of up to a hundred are good to start but then as many as 4000 to 5000 need to get together for the decisions. Finding places for that is a challenge)
Convincing that broad spectrum of constructing their own better system is challenging enough, but I acknowledge that we’re going to need to convert some military.
Big steps.

>>19578813
cockshott is utter shit. just reading Marx plus regular bourgeois historians will be a thousand times better
>>19579617
whatever, his readers will eat this shit up anyway because they're illiterate morons who can't understand Marx
>>19579675
socialism is the movement of the proletariat, and its promise for the proletarians is that only when they act in a unified way as a class is it possible for them to enforce their interests and have their needs met.
and its promise to the middle class is that it will be expropriated, but also that it will then at least not fall into a subjugated proletariat (or straight into gas chambers) as it would if it was expropriated by capital instead.
>>19579989
it's incoherent babble of some petty bourgeois child who treats socialism as a hobby and an identity, and who can only reason in generalities and in bourgeois abstractions (the people!)

>>19579675
>what's the appeal of socialism? I haven't cared to read any of the literature.
See
>>19580815
>it's incoherent babble of some petty bourgeois child

did what if we tried communism but with computers lmao

>>19579755
That's a nice fantasy but how is it even possible to completely prevent an "elitist class" from developing? It's impossible. I'll preemptively counter your "government regulation" argument with stating that a government entity with that much power will automatically create an elitist class consisting of those in control of said government.

Also, good luck creating a society with any form of currency.

P.S. Chomsky is a faggot. And no I won't elaborate.

>>19582132
>with any form of currency.
Meant without

>>19582132
No, the maintenance of class is the fantasy. Anarchism is a challenging of all unjustifiable hierarchies, not a denial of any.
I don’t want nor need a government or their regulations to maintain that. Hah! That creates a political class. And as we all see, they write laws that they don’t have to follow.

A non accumulative currency is a transition currency to a free economy. It’s only difficult because of the existence of a state and their goon squad.

Chomsky ain’t my thing. He’s just the one to introduce me to this buried alternative.

>>19582177
>>19582277
Look at these digis

>>19582277
Just to be forthright I have my complaints of capitalism and the government but hierarchical structures are going to exist no matter what system you're using. If you put 10 people in a room they will naturally develop a pecking order. Now, in theory, the group could decide to collaborate and create "rules" that each must follow. Naturally people are going to try and circumvent these rules for personal gain. Three people could band together to overpower the other less influential people. Let's say, miraculously, all of these people follow the rules. What happens when someone abuses the rules? Anyways, I'm rambling but you get the idea.

Your critics aren't really aimed at any particular system but at human nature. You might at as well complain about the sky being blue.

>>19578813
Bump

>>19582277
How would it work though?

Paul Penisshot

>>19583993
She doesn't know. It's about demanding solutions not providing them.

>>19585362
I’m laying out a variety of basic actions. Their effects are easily imagined.

>>19582399
>but hierarchical structures are going to exist no matter what system you're using. If you put 10 people in a room they will naturally develop a pecking order. Now, in theory, the group could decide to collaborate and create "rules" that each must follow. Naturally people are going to try and circumvent these rules for personal gain
Sounds like anarchism.
The place sticks together with direct democracy. Not everyone has to participate, but they’ll happier if they did at least on occasion.
The random killer/rapist/child molesters are going to get caught by the community and dealt with however that community sees fit. A far better world would turn out less of that sort

>>19580815
thank you

>>19580815
>college boy tankie calling me middle class
Piss off

>>19585470
penny for your thoughts https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-commodity-fetishism-an-introduction-to-i-i-rubin-s-essay-on-marx-s-theory-of-valu
>>19585422
>The random killer/rapist/child molesters are going to get caught by the community and dealt with however that community sees fit.
ah, so vigilante "justice"

>>19585489
However a community wishes to arrange themselves in the matter. Some “crimes” would be grey enough to warrant trials of some sort I’m sure.
I personally don’t think it’s wise to set in stone codified law.

>>19585504
so law still exists, it's just made up on the spot instead

>>19585517
That’s what I’d advocate. Customs change, though the elders would stress the reasons for them to the next generation, they’d chafe less

>>19578813
This writer must have had great times in the schoolyard.

Just came 'ere to say
Buttersflay's gay

>>19585752
Lesbian homosexual*

>>19585531
>incoherent babble of some petty bourgeois child .. who can only reason in generalities and in bourgeois abstractions

>>19585942
>It’s middle class to speak of the masses coming to their own conclusions as to how to run their own lives

Is it time to admit you’re not a socialist, or do you not know how greentext works?

My thoughts on your thoughts Butters:
>>19582177
>No, the maintenance of class is the fantasy
It's reality. Reality of our past, of our present and most likely our future.
>Anarchism is a challenging of all unjustifiable hierarchies
No such a thing, all hierarchies are self justifable, the one you propose is no different. Political class will naturally emerge in every organized society.
>A non accumulative currency is a transition currency to a free economy. It’s only difficult because of the existence of a state and their goon squad.
People like to own things, it's no matter of their political beliefs. You will be the one with the goon squad of lumpenproletariat, because ambitious people will either flock to the state or will subvert your movement to make it statist one, because it grants them greater boons than the stateless society ever could.
>>19585422
>Their effects are easily imagined.
Indeed, they are.
>The place sticks together with direct democracy.
I don't think this is what people want or desire, for variety of reasons.
>The random killer/rapist/child molesters are going to get caught by the community and dealt with however that community sees fit. A far better world would turn out less of that sort
Mob justice and misrule are one of the reasons why people prefer living under the state.
>>19585504
>However a community wishes to arrange themselves in the matter.
What if the would wish to arrange themselves into a state ;P
>I personally don’t think it’s wise to set in stone codified law.
This will lead people to further dissatisfaction with your community. I think your way of making politics and justice would gave a rise to political cliques, because they wouldn't consider current system to be fair one.o
Honestly, I don't think this whole thing would work well, Butters. System you propose would require great deal of tyranny to enforce, otherwise it would quickly start to fell apart, because most people would have very little interest in maintaining your way of things. Centralization of power is inevitable, either as the reaction against anarchist society, or as defensive action of said society against internal threats, which are going to arise at some point. When faced with a choice between anarchist community and a state, majority of people is going to choose state every time - it offers them far greater potential rewards than anarchist community ever could and requires less effort and active participation. At the end of the day freedom is just an idea - easy to shout out, hard to live by.

>>19585948
true, i'm a communist

>>19585949
>It's reality. Reality
>Today the United States is the number one country. Reality.
No, really. There’s tons of unjustifiable hierarchies and they will be questioned as they are questioned now. Reality.
> Political class will naturally emerge in every organized society.
In such an arrangement the majority would concern themselves with their business and become that political “class”. What are you afraid of?
>people like to own things
And so they shall. People will just not own whole countrysides, whole governmental bodies, patents on ideas, other’s bodies. There is no greater boon than actual freedom.
>A variety of reasons!
?
>people prefer the state because they like their mob rule to have sophisticated weaponry and cute uniforms!
I’m not suggesting mob rule, I’m admitting a community will react to violent crime with violence. Bring it up at a meeting.
>what if they want to go back to dictatorship and rule of fear and slavery?
Lunacy will lead to our extinction
And finally. First I’m warned there will be warlords and crazy predictors, but when I say the people will be able to deal with them you feign victim and the community will fall apart for these unlawfully judged psychopaths. Tyranny, mob rule, tyranny, mob rule. We’ve lived as simply and effectively before. Enough theatrics

>>19585954
I describe communism. You must mean state-socialist.

>>19586001
you only describe systems
why not read what i linked and realize you can only pick between perlman and your irrelevant british reactionary

>>19586010
Bourgie kid, I did not just read a whole essay from the 60s now and I have not read anything on theory of laws, so this chart makes about as much sense as a D&D rule book to me.

>>19586022
oh what i meant by the map was that you already live in your utopia, it's called common law, and it doesn't make living anywhere any different from a civil law country. you're just a hobbyist basically
>I did not just read a whole essay from the 60s now
wdym? did you read it

>>19579744
>by the people and for the people

Why do you care about the people so much?
What exactly do you hope to achieve?
Prolonged life expectancy? Prolonged laughs? More muscles? More fat? Substitution of physical suffering for the inevitable psychological suffering of the well-to-do?

What exactly is your end goal there?

>>19586053
>Why do you care about the people so much?
Freedom is what we’re after.
Bleedingly obvious

>>19586979
>we
Do you even have friends? Who is we?

>>19586979
Are you anti-lockdown?

>>19586979
eventually there may come a moment when, confronted with the ineptitude and irresolute immorality of mankind, you finally strip off these socialist clothes and bathe nude in the freezing waters of realism: when you see through the gilded chest-plate of the ideal to the hollow heart that barely beats within

these desirous dreams give succour to the soul well all seems dark and dreary, but they are in truth nothing more than imaginative fictions, flights of fancy set in some otherworld where goodness is default, or at least can be found within the roiling mass of plebeian filth

and that truth will out. you can deny it still, read your way through those piles of books written by those who hope and dream, and wish so very hard: 'if only others would see the light and think as I do; if only they could see that these systems of privilege and greed, this culture-destructing, value-eroding, life-destroying system, this Capital, is the root of the evil that stalks our heels, snapping at our shins, driving us to deathly-thoughts and playing havoc with our hearts -- then we could make such a world!'

but this will be denial still, and your faith, that this is a world we make, and could just as well make differently, is just that: Faith. unfounded, unsupported -- but also wrong.

for there is no way of saving this fallen world, beyond the way that has already been shown.

>>19586979
the Revolution always ends in one of two ways: most often it is crushed by heavier hands, beneath the jackboots of reaction; or, when the victorious rebels march into the palaces of their oppressors and raise their red flags, they are undermined, their power usurped, by those less noble than themselves, who manipulate and work with iron minds and twisted tongues, worming their way to the top, from where they announce their authority and preach their policies and achieve unadulterated power, and the People are crushed beneath jackboots just the same.

this conclusion is inevitable: Failure, or Betrayal.

>>19589491
You are using overly flowery, baroque language, it makes your overall message kitschy and tacky. You could cut half of your post and it wouldn't lose any informative value and maybe even would gain some aesthetic value. Everyday English isn't the language of cathedrals and Fabergé eggs, if I can say so myself as an ESL. I wouldn't waste my time preaching to Butterfly poster, but you do you.

>>19578813
NOW'S YOUR CHANCE TO BE A

>>19586979
How do you define freedom? I hope it's not a circular definition according to which freedom is whatever X is attained by your preferred system.
Also, would you say that you want freedom for as many people as possible?
Are you then simply a utilitarian who changes Bentham's formula of "happiness" for "freedom"?

>>19590577
The absence of slavery is a damn good start, don’t you think?

>>19590617
Yes.
What else? Just that? So is Iceland free? Would you try to change Iceland?

>>19590640
>you try to change
I see you’re not a very close reader. No wonder you’re confused.

>>19590647
What do you mean?
I haven't read the rest of your posts, if that's what you're referring to. I am simply trying to understand your definition of freedom.
"Absence of slavery" is a rhetorical definition perhaps satisfying for 16 y.o. children, but certainly not satisfying for me, because it obviously begs the question: what then is slavery, according to you? Do you have a serious definition?

>>19590669
>I haven't read the rest of your posts
Or the first thing about socialism of the libertarian variety.
It would be quite satisfying to a slave to contemplate.

Socialist programs have a hard time taking root in places that reap the riches and share adequately with their population (European “socialism” is a fraud stand-in). But when times get tough, homelessness and inflation increases etc. the protests start and the socialists get listened to more.
Iceland would do what it wants. They made their government step down a decade ago the way France has tried to make Macron’s government do. I bet they’d adopt direct democracy easily.

There’s several layers of slavery/unfreedom. Chattel lifelong indentured servitude, industrial slavery, later wage slavery. We’re in debt from birth, alway owing , even though this modern world is drawing out extremely cheap fossil fuels. No one should have been in this phony debt this whole time.
…eating

>>19590715
>Chattel lifelong indentured servitude, industrial slavery, later wage slavery

I receive wages and do not feel like a slave. Why should people like me be forced to live under your preferred system? Why are we not free to choose to live under this current system? I feel fine in it. Life is great.