/lit/ - Literature

>>5116734
Define leftism. Otherwise, I cant answer.

>posting on 4chan at 30
goddamn

yeah I'm gonna have to ask why you're still posting on 4chan, OP

>>5116734
>At what age did you discover /pol /lit/? I found it it at 15, I'm 16 now.

At what age did you grow out of posting unrelated topics on /lit/, /lit/? I grew out of it at 16. I'm 30 now.

>>5116738
Marxist school of economics, socialists, "left libertarians", collectivists, anarchists that aren't AnCaps.

>>5116740
>planning to ever leave

>>5116748
Whats the alternative? Neoliberalism? "Traditionalism?"

>>5116734
Bet'ya a lotta money people will respond without reading.

>>5116754
Just pointing out what's considered left-wing, you don't have to get assblasted about it.

If anything, socialism is already the "alternative" they're trying and it's making everything worse.

>>5116748
Socialism is ultimately what the world is heading to. You might deny it now, but it will happen.

>>5116748
>anarchists that aren't AnCaps
What about individual anarchism? But Anarcho-capitalism is stupid anyway, states were founded to defend property and it would quickly lead to feudalism. Plus, it was founded by a guy who looks like le happy merchant incarnate.

>>5116757
That chart is wrong, Nazism and Fascism are radical center, the right-wing and left-wing spectrum have nothing to do with social authoritarianism or social liberty, they have to do with economic issues. You support socialist economic policies, you're left-wing, you support classic liberal economic policies, you're right wing, easy as that.

If anything, the only real far-right ideology that comes to my mind is Anarcho-Capitalism. Even a Libertarian is more right-wing than a fundamentalist conservative because conservative economic policies are austrian economic school mixed with Keynesian economic school.

>>5116761
>You might deny it now, but it will happen.
It already happened, and the world is at an all time high in shittiness right now.

Most Latin American countries are socialist, most developed countries currently have socialist governments, same with most asian countries.

>>5116775
So you didn't read it.

Most lack the maturity to grow into some *ism, so there was no growing out.

>>5116760
wha. I'm literally asking you what the alternative is

don't tell me you're a traditionalist

>>5116793
At that age, that is.

>>5116775
You owe him a lotta money.

Then again, I'm assuming it's not just samefaggotry.

>>5116793
Isn't every school of thought some sort of '-ism', though?

>>5116785
Ethics and morality are subjective.

>>5116794
I'm a Minarchist Libertarian myself. I'm not saying we should get rid of all regulations or that we should do drastic shit, I'm not an AnCap, I believe the size of the government should be reduced to the point where it only consists of essential entities, like security, military, courts and shit like that. Same shit with the amount of power that politicians have, we have to remove their power and benefits to a bare minimum so there's no one to bribe or lobby.

Regarding regulations, I'd eliminate some, but regulations regarding public safety and health are still necessary.

Regarding social issues, I believe in social freedom, but I don't believe in ENFORCING it the way modern liberals do.

I'm not saying it's the most perfect system, but it's the most transparent and objective.

>>5116761
Socialism had the legs cut from under it a long time ago. All it has to its name are stagnant welfare states.

The developing world is the future and those countries aren't the dream.

>>5116811
it just seems to me that without pretty stringent economic regulations, corporations even in a minimal state aren't going to stop being exploitative, they just won't have to work through the state

>but I don't believe in ENFORCING it the way modern liberals do.
what do you mean?

>>5116817
do you think that most western european welfare states are stagnant economically?

>>5116811
>Ethics and morality are subjective.
The basic and fundamental ones usually aren't, hombre.

>but it's the most transparent and objective.
It's about as transparent and 'objective' (whatever that's supposed to mean) as the modern liberal democracy I assume you live in at the moment. You can reduce the size of government as much as you want, but as long as your economic system is one based on private property, that government is going to work hand in hand to further the interests of the owners of wealth. The changes you advocate are largely cosmetic and will do little to nothing to reduce bribery and lobbying, threats to public safety regulations, and the all round domination of business interests.

>>5116734
I was an edgy neo-nazi ages 14-17, I only recently grew into leftism, after realizing racism is retarded.
I'm 20 now.

>>5116811
>Ethics and morality are subjective.
Why did I ever come back to /lit/.

I'm too good for this place. See ya later losers.

>>5116830
yes
welfare is meant to be exploited
why dont they just hand out their money on the streets

>>5116840
what is the objective morality

>>5116817
Ugh, can you at least reserve the term 'socialist' for societies based on commonly owned means of production, rather than simply those you consider possess 'big government'?

>>5116848
not the same anon,
but thats not the point
the point is youre avoiding an argument by saying everything is subjective
why is this so hard to fucking understand

>I only subscribe to mature political ideologies for mature people, such as myself.

>>5116848
stupid faggot, there is a system of ethics that can be measured by innumerable criteria that have observable and objective results for an organism that adheres (or does not) to said code of ethics.

>>5116734
I think the more important question is when did you grow out of neoliberaism?

>>5116734
>le based farage voter
>grown up

Pick one.

>>5116855
so is there an objective morality then?

>>5116734
19 for me after quitting my heroin addiction. It was when I realized that literature transcended everything including politics.

>>5116854
Moo, Western socialists embraced welfare states because they believed in a steady transition. And thanks to that (and the Lord), it will never happen.

Socialism, radical or reformist, is bust.

>>5116883
your lack of comprehension is objective

>>5116876
It's hard to since it holds an ideological dominance that permeates every goddamn facet of society.

Really, when considering just how hopeless the fight against neoliberalism is, I find it very depressing.

>>5116908
I know although at least it is self destructive though.

>>5116898
you're saying there is one, but you can't produce it

>>5116895
you say that but why should I believe it

>>5116930
>you're saying there is one
saying there is one what?

>>5116949
an objective morality

>>5116954
no i didnt, youre missing the point i just made here >>5116855

>>5116734
Growing out of believing correct ideals is nothing to be proud of...

>>5116963
so, we should pretend/assume objectivity, even if it isn't there, for the sake of argument?

>>5116748
I grew out of that sort of 'leftism' after the ninth grade, and around a year after I started university I grew out of the equally nonsensical 'right' viewpoints which you seem to hold based on the exception you made for anarcho-capitalism.

>>5116811
>Same shit with the amount of power that politicians have, we have to remove their power and benefits to a bare minimum so there's no one to bribe or lobby.
This isn't even in line with basic economic thinking; the less they stand to lose and the less their position provides them clear benefits, the easier it is for moneyed interests to buy their services.

You know, I don't think your position is really that terrible--it's not too dissimilar to the position I myself used to hold. The issue I have with it is that (1) it implies a sort of banal view of humanity and governance and (2) perhaps more importantly, such a view is clearly counterfactual if you examine the efficiency of various countries' governments in various industries, e.g. public transportation in Germany and Japan or education in Singapore.

It's obvious to me that in America, and in many other countries, government efficiency of that sort is practically impossible. But to me the solution to that is not to decrease the powers and role of the government but rather to elevate the mentalities and level of education of the populace as a whole to the point where such efficiencies naturally arise.

>>5116978
yes youre right anon why argue about anything since everythings subjective
why are you even on this board since this board is subjective
why dont you kill yourself since life is subjective

>>5116811
>>5116979
To elaborate--I don't mean to be offensive, I really don't, but invariably those who hold the same viewpoint you have do so in some sort of uneducated attempt to imitate the philosophies of economists. I hope there is a a day when you realize that the teachings of modern economics do not, in any way, imply that such a radically reduced form of government is in any way ideal or the most efficient, in the same way that markets are a "bit" more complicated than the idealizations of a single-firm monopoly vs. Pareto-efficient perfect competition.

What I am saying is, in short, is that you should not rely on the idealizations and generalizations made in your Econ 101 classes to completely guide your political thought. They should inform them, certainly--but what is more important is to be aware of the infinite complexity of human society, as well as of the fact that economics is in all likelihood far, far more complex than you could imagine (indeed the highest levels of theory demand a significant amount of mathematical sophistication), and that if you ask the question, "is it more efficient for some function to be performed by the government, free market, or both?", the answer is probably something like "first, it depends on the sort of people in the country and the average level of education, and second, we should do some econometrics and try to arrive at a tentative answer".

>>5116811
>>5116979
>>5116993
Finally,

>Regarding regulations, I'd eliminate some, but regulations regarding public safety and health are still necessary.
I'm potentially fine with this, but only because it's so general that you haven't really said anything at all. You haven't advanced very much of a position. I mean, I think we can all agree that the US ban on those chocolate Kinder Eggs or whatever is pretty stupid.

>Regarding social issues, I believe in social freedom, but I don't believe in ENFORCING it the way modern liberals do.
I accept this statement.

>I'm not saying it's the most perfect system, but it's the most transparent and objective.
And this one I don't accept. Your view, like I've said before, is based on economic ideology; it is most certainly not the most objective.

I imagine you're one of those types of people who think that lowering (or at least not raising) the minimum wage is a good idea. Perhaps it is--perhaps it isn't. But I also doubt that your understanding of the theoretical issues behind it extend very far past "the minimum wage is a price floor on the labor market".

And more importantly, you can discuss theory all day, but in the end you have to look at empirical data to come to any sort of actionable conclusion. Do you know that the landmark paper, some years ago, by Card and Kreuger demonstrated a _negative_ disemployment effect resulting from a minimum wage (and that it's cited often by "liberals")? I imagine not. But I also imagine that neither they or you are aware of the more recent work by Neumark and Wascher that has replicated the Card/Kreuger paper with better data and demonstrated the opposite effect. Really, there is a lot more depth to these issues than it seems you realize.

>>5116993
>what is more important is to be aware of the infinite complexity of human society, as well as of the fact that economics is in all likelihood far, far more complex than you could imagine

...If you believe human society is infinitely complex, then you are making the ultimate argument for a free market over one controlled by a central authority, since no authority could complete understand all the angles and it's better to just let the system sort itself out.

>>5116751
>thinking you're able to leave

>UKIP

>>5116811
Once a horse is given a carrot you cannot take it away.

>I'm going to die young

>>5116835
>The basic and fundamental ones usually aren't, hombre.
There is no such thing moron.

>>5116982
You are the one who is missing the point, the chart says we should be ethical. What does that mean? Ethics are subjective. If anything Mr Subjectivism (the anon you are irrationally attacking) understands that decisions are much more complicated than even the chart states they are.

>>5117334
By denying what you consider to be ethics and morality completely, you are only subscribing to the "ethics" of those in power and further enabling them to further cripple the standard of living of those with less power. How does it feel to be a tool of the elite?

>>5117349
>By denying what you consider to be ethics
I am not doing that, I accept what I consider to be ethics when I understand they are subjective.
>you are only subscribing to the "ethics" of those in power
This is an astounding jump in logic
>How does it feel to be a tool of the elite?
I now believe in objective morality, am I a tool of the elite now? You idiocy is astounding.

I was a marxist until I was 17. Then I was an Anarchist for 3 years.

Finally, at the end, I became a normal person.

>>5117356
>Finally, at the end, I became a normal person.
There is no such thing.

>hey guys I read the communist manifesto when I was 17 (yep, the whooooooooole thing! I even read the prefaces and introductions!)
>my superior grasp of economics and history has demolished Marx at his very origins once and for all
>now I poast on the chonz!
AREN'T WE LUCKY

22 or so. im 26 now.

i have to say that i grew out of it cause i had to. i could never establish lasting and meaningful relationships with people in leftist circles (i was there for the ideas but most people are there just to socialize and dont give a shit about ideas, even most of the time if they think they do) so i kept analyzing and advancing on my way through the ideas and well... of course their coherence fell after a closer look.

if people were to actually analyze and follow ideas they would grow out of leftism in a month, but when it becomes a collective movement ideas become irrelevant and shit turns just into an alternative lifestyle.

>>5117373
I got a job and a girlfriend.

I don't have time to be a marxist anymore. :^)

>>5117380
What does that have to do with anything?

>>5117380
>tfw love is the ultimate counter-revolutionary method society uses to kill potential revolt

>>5117386
It didn't stop Blake.

>>5117386
>tfw love as a concept was invented by the burgeousie so that the proletariat is led to oppress itself

>>5116740
31yo here

prefer 4/lit/ over most other websites
>not a neet
>well paid
>not working 5 days a week
>have friends

>>5117377
That's an absurdly sweeping statement to make.

>>5117274
I want that shirt with a picture of Stalin waving at marching soldiers

>>5117394
i know and i agree with you. but it is not a statement, it is a fact proved by experience. cause if someone had told me what i wrote back then i would have had the same reaction as you.

just go ahead and try anon, youll either find a cute group to hang with and will forget ideas, or will come back giving me the reason.

>>5117394
i know and i agree with you. but it is not a statement, it is a fact proved by experience. cause if someone had told me back then what i just wrote, i would have had the same reaction as you.

just go ahead and try anon, youll either find a cute group to hang with and will forget ideas, or will come back giving me the reason.

>>5117405
>>5117377
So you hung out with some posers a little while ago and now you're chuffed on "leftists." You're hella deep.

>>5117421
well yes cause i thought those posers had something in their heads or at least a real motivation as i did... when i realized they didnt i just followed that motivation and saw that it was quite naive.

and whos talking about deepness? fuck that, thats another idea to grow out of.

>>5116734

>left/right dichotomy

>>5117425
My reference to being "deep" was a sarcastic remark meant to register displeasure at your trashing of an entire tradition of political and philosophical thought based on its most embarrassing elements.

I have serious doubts about any sort of collective grassroots action these days, but that doesn't preclude me from thinking of myself as a leftist.

>>5117405
>>5117425
Both the left and the right attract a large number of idiots who barely understand the ideas they espouse. I'm glad that you've found certainty in your own political beliefs after deeper analysis, but there's no need to assume that anyone with beliefs left of yours just hasn't done enough reading because you spent time with the chaff of that sort of politics.

>>5117377
It would take more than a month merely to learn the various historical events and theories of Marxism. Do you think you might gone a different path if you had better leftist company?

>>5116979
>This isn't even in line with basic economic thinking; the less they stand to lose and the less their position provides them clear benefits, the easier it is for moneyed interests to buy their services.

not really. The bigger the power in the hands of politicians, the bigger the advantage to buy one for yourself.

>>5116811
>I'm a Minarchist Libertarian myself.
lel
>thread hidden

At what age did you grow out of Trotsykism /lit/?

>>5117435
>>5117440
>>5117441
right, i saw that coming, maybe i was not that clear. obviously the two things have nothing to do even if i mentioned the together. i never said that i grew out of leftism BECAUSE of my particular experience of it, that would be quite stupid, but just that this particular experience lead me into going deep into it by myself, which revealed its naiveness as an idea/movement.

maybe i mixed up different things without making their difference explicit, so i dont really see this discussion going anywhere... i just tell you this: beware of collective agreement, cause that is never a real criteria to validate an idea.

>>5117464
You were not clear.

>beware of collective agreement, cause that is never a real criteria to validate an idea.

In order to be a leftist in the first place you have to challenge the collective agreement that wealth is distributed by merit and is accordingly just.

Which leftist works did you find most helpful during your introspection and figuring out the naivety of its ideas and what political system did you find to end up being the best/most desirable as a result?

>>5117345
>>5116978
>>5116811

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constructivism-metaethics/

>>5117464
I doubt very much that all it takes is the right amount of "going deep" into a political movement as broad as the left to somehow expose it all as fruitless. If you've discovered the secret formula that discredits the entire left, by all means share it.

⇒At what age did you grow out of leftism
Never grew into it in the first place. Back in school the only people believing this bullshit were outsider freaks who also listened to metal music and wanted to appear pseudo-intellectual despite being barely literate. I got the impression that the communist manifesto is just a replacement for the usual genre fiction trash these people used to read, and it's being treated by them the exact same way, i.e. a utopia fantasy escapist world they adopt in order to cover up their insecurity with an attempt to define their actually non-existent personality via meaningless buzzwords. Just role playing nonsense on an allegedly more socially acceptable level.

⇒my mfw when a 30 year old posts on 4chan
That's so sad that it becomes funny again. You must be the mayor of Loserville. I'd make more fun of you, but you'd probably jerk off to the humiliation, cause that's the closest interaction with a woman you'll ever have.

>>5117508

NOW LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE

YOU WOKE HER UP

FUCK

>>5117508
>people older than me use the internet
>boo-hoo

>>5116748
left libertarians are kinda cool though.pic related.
and are somewhat rare...

>>5116805

Defining your self to one -ism is dangerous, one should be able to change ones views when new evidence is presented.

>>5117517
I had a dream last night and this guy was mentioned. The dream told me that Orwell wrote 1984 not to denounce modern tyranny but to advertise, advocate and prepare people for it.

pretty weird huh

>>5117519
I think the bigger issue is not people refusing to change their views when new evidence is presented more so the refusal to actively seek and update existing evidence.

>>5117521
it's not like he invented anything.
i heard that once the book had become available beyond the iron curtain, the main reaction was "dude, that's my life"

>>5117529
If you read Orwell's essays, you'll see that most of 1984 is based on behaviour of the Spanish and international communists, as well as the fascists during the Spanish Civil War. So it's no wonder that the Soviet communists were familiar with the materials in 1984.

>>5116734

Early 20's. Too much bullshit and manipulation.

>>5117533
i have read a couple of his essays.
mostly litererary critique.fun stuff.
i guess i'll check the political ones.
thanks for the tip.

>>5117542
It's very good reading! ebooks@adelaide has a largish collection of ~600 pages for free, but it's definitely not complete.

>>5117545
thanks again

>>5116761

>>5116779
>Most Latin American countries are socialist

Not really. Just Venezuela and even that is pushing it

of course Venezuela is the biggest shithole in South America right now whereas Chile is on its way to joining the first world because markets work

>>5117513
fuck that gif, forever

>>5117550
>markets work
>2014

>>5116761
I wish you were right anon

>>5116779
Most developed countries have governments that support neoliberal scum

>>5117550
>markets work

To what end you deluded sheeple?

>>5116747
>>5116747
now that you have described your sims character tell us a bit about yourself

Why the hate for "neoliberalism" in here? Because it improved the living standards for more people than socialism ever did, and without killing people?