/lit/ - Literature

I don't remember, I was like 10.

>>6514518

>>6514518

When I read both opposing ideas. It's pretty clear the opposing arguments are scarred by arrogance.

>yfw you first thought deeply about welfare and charity from a perspective of class struggle and you realise you've been helping the enemy your entire life

>>6514546
That's some accurate gif.

>>6514518

jerking off to trap porn on /b/

>>6514518
I was on strike.

p.s.: Totalisation of a future capacity cannot occur without the material basis. Capitalism reproduces itself in the worker on a daily basis as they sell their labour power, just as socialism reproduces itself on a daily basis as they resist collectively selling their labour power.

No worker has an internalised class consciousness, as that is individual, and no body of workers is capable of totalising social relations—there is no lens of class society, only a glass darkly.

I was in school debating my teacher on wither total digital disembodiment is acceptable as an alternative to capitalism.

Marxism is unaesthetic, therefore it is worthless.

>>6514677
vaporwave is a Marxist genre, idiot.

I was born, and have lived, poor yet slightly intelligent. That helped a bit I suppose.

>>6514690
yeah and the vapor in vaporwave is farts

>>6514677

Aesthetic is worthless.

>>6514725
says the tripfag

>>6514704
No it isn't. It's about how everything solid turns into air.

>>6514728

Then is the argument trip = aesthetic mean anonymous = collectivism?

Why not make a trip in that case.

>>6514739
You know that the sublime is produced by exposing the material to heat? Like firing on bosses.

>>6514677
>Marxism is unaesthetic

>>6514518
Working

>>6514805

>>6514546
+1

I was in my room reading Marx.

>>6514677
>aesthetics
>not petit bourgeois slime

>>6514805
>>6514810
is marxism the same as communism?

>>6515125
No. Marxism refers to the system of thoughts, and practices, of people inspired by Karl Marx and Fred Engel's writings.

Communism refers amongst cretinist sep cunts to the Soviet style societies.

Communism properly refers to communal possession and use of the forces of society, in a society without property.

>>6514805
that's not marxism, that's a picture

>>6514518

I don't know, but working as a janitor in a post industrial city probably helped.

>>6515143
so those pics don't embody the aesthetics of marxism

>>6515191
For the aesthetics of Marxism I'd suggest reading Lukacs.

>>6515161
that's not an argument, that's a sentence

>>6514518
High school government class, reading Noam Chomsky.

I regret nothing, my naive leftism was still better than the majority.

>>6514518

moving to new york city at 21

>>6514518
>apparatus of oppression?
the state alone is oppressive

>>6515295
Go to bed, bakunin.

>>6515307
>>6515295
Funny thing is Marx would'nt like a state-centralized economy like URSS, for him it would be another kind of olygarchy.

>>6515474
In English it is the "USSR" and "oligarchy."

>>6515474
>>6515498

Retards can't spell SURS and olijarchy

At this point I can't tell if you all are just partaking in an epic meme, or actually believe in this garbage. Either way it doesn't matter because either answer means you're retarded.

Why hasn't everyone just accepted capitalism? It's working much better than Marxism ever has.

>>6515531
>capitalism
it is a fuite en avant, where we need and produce always more (objects and humans). It has also pitfalls where the citizens can be easily turned towards something else than the politics

OFC, now we have several billions of people on earth, so we must put them into use.

>>6515546
>it is a fuite en avant, where we need and produce always more (objects and humans)
Wrong.

>>6515191
jacque fresco does.

I was reading The Grundrisse, one of the most air-tight polemics ever written. Changed my way of viewing the world forever.

>>6514518
Sorry mate, I've already reverted back to Volkgeist, duty cals.

>>6514836
Marxists usually call aesthetics, the lifestyle of fascists. W. Benjamin did it.

I was like 16 and depressed.

Then I grew up and became a Christian because I realized that the evil is in man and not in institutions like the Gnostics/Marxists say it is.

>>6515474
>marx wouldn't like dictatorship of the proletariat
Please.

>>6515992
dumb christposter

>>6515531
Capitalism only really functioned well when there were strong Communist movements in the world that scared capitalists enough to make massive concessions to labor.

>>6515998
He wouldn't like the USSR.

A better example of socialism was the Inca empire.

>>6514725
I'm not surprised a chinless nig would support this position.

I was in vegas smoking salvia in my penthouse suite when Jamie called

"Marxism is dead"

"No"

>its intrinsic apparatus of oppression

Are you impressed with yourself for realizing that a hierarchy is purposely structured to sustain itself?

What I would love to know is why Marxists think that the mere recognition of oppression justifies the removal of that oppression.

>>>/pol/

>>6514518
I was in highschool

>>6516394
>What I would love to know is why Marxists think that the mere recognition of oppression justifies the removal of that oppression.

1. All things are expressions of their power.
2. Power is the capacity to act and be acted upon.
3. All things strive as much as possible to increase their power given that it is the condition of their existence.
4. A thing's power can be increased or decreased when affected by respectively beneficial or poisonous things.
5. In so far as I am linked to things that increase my knowledge and my capacity to act, I am more powerful.
6. In so far as I am linked to things that drive me through manipulations of the passions, I am less powerful.

Given 1,2, 3, and 4, one should as much as is possible, bring about the state of affairs described in 5.

A. Capitalism and its methods of oppression decrease my ability to act and acquire adequate knowledge.
B. Capitalism links me with others in bondage.

Claim: One should fight against methods that decrease one's power and link others in bondage. Orientation should be towards collective striving towards power, freedom, and action given that one's ability to act and be in freedom is greater when linked with others in a beneficial way.

>>6516877

Good work anon.

>>6516892
>all those sloppy and unproven premises
>good work

>>6516410

l-m-a-o quit bitching. People have to deal with trailer park ideologue bullshit all the time, focus on that.

>>6516905


>implying capitalism isn't founded on sloppy and unproven premises

>>6516368

>>6516964
>implying capitalism isn't founded on sloppy and unproven premises

Who said anything about capitalism? The fact is that most of those premises need to be fleshed out. All things are expressions of "the capacity to act and be acted upon"? How is a chair an expression of this capacity? What is an example of an increase in this capacity versus a decrease?

And assuming 1-6 are true, those arguments don't contain the reason for dismantling what is described in arguments A and B*. Simply because it is the "condition of their existence", it doesn't follow that everyone *should* be allowed an increase in power over a decrease in power. That has not been argued effectively.

*How does capitalism decrease your ability to acquire adequate knowledge?

>>6517024
>The fact is that most of those premises need to be fleshed out
>implying they haven't been fleshed out a million times over
>i
>m
>p
>l
>y
>i
>n
>g

>How does capitalism decrease your ability to acquire adequate knowledge?

By ensuring that it's a competition and not a right. If you want to argue with me about why education should be considered a right, you'll be proving my point.

Basic income, enough to survive at least, should be bare minimum for a functional society for a number of reasons from morale to moral.

Capitalism and the Liberalism that comes with it, have too many issues to be considered a "good option", so another option must be worked towards. It's that simple.

>>6517065
>ensuring that it's a competition

What about capitalism "ensures" this? Take the internet for example, I can look up almost anything I want and increase my knowledge. Where is capitalism interfering with this and turning it into a competition?

>Basic income...for a number of reasons from morale to moral

But this is a different argument than the power argument, it is an argument from morals.

>>6517080

>What about capitalism "ensures" this? Take the internet for example, I can look up almost anything I want and increase my knowledge. Where is capitalism interfering with this and turning it into a competition?

If you need to be instructed how Capitalism affected eduction or can affect, or historically has affected, you shouldn't be speaking about Capitalism.

>But this is a different argument than the power argument, it is an argument from morals.

Both are points against Capitalism.

>>6517087
>If you need to be instructed how Capitalism affected eduction or can affect, or historically has affected, you shouldn't be speaking about Capitalism.

This isn't about what I "need", it's about being able to back up your argument. You made a specific claim, that capitalism "ensures" that education becomes a competition, not a general claim (that it merely "affects" education).

>>6517114

Capitalism ensures education is a competition as it is, and if you deny that, that it's not inherent within it, it hardly matters now because your position shouldn't be fought for.

>>6517024
>it doesn't follow that everyone *should* be allowed an increase in power over a decrease in power.

This isn't a moral argument. It's an immanent ethics that clarifies what each one person should do given that their capacity to act (their power, their essence itself) is tied to relationships with others that increase it or decrease it.

Liberals work on morality, the isolated subject. "Things should be so for a "universal" people because I hold certain transcendent moral principles."

Radical communists say: "Things are going to be so for a particular people because all things strive to increase their power and one's power is greater when with friends."

>>6516964
what is it with you and trailer parks?

>>6517235

Moral directly follows with Morale though. You can't have a productive force without dealing with ethics.

Are you saying ethics are an avoidable subject?

>>6517265

Most people who have opinions on 4chan have opinions you would expect from its audience IE anyone can post and anyone can have an opinion. Including people you generally wouldn't want to be around.

>>6517235
>This isn't a moral argument. It's an immanent ethics that clarifies what each one person should do

Uh huh.

>>6517265
Christian (Foucault the tripfags real name) fetishizes the strong chins that he associates with the proletariat. Much of his anti-capitalist rhetoric is due his sense of chin envy.

>>6517272
You're pretty chinless[/spolier]

>>6517285

You know you have too much time on your hands when you think I made an elaborate conspiracy to prove that I'm not the person you stalked so I can make you look embarrassing.

Maybe you just post the same photo over and over again in an attempt for it to sick as memeology

>>6517291

>Most people who have opinions on 4chan have opinions you would expect from its audience IE anyone can post and anyone can have an opinion. Including people you generally wouldn't want to be around.

If you're someone anyone would want to be around, you don't have to worry, or be offended for them.

>>6517305
Hmm interesting choice of phrasing, you think someone has too much time on their hands when they accuse you of creating a conspiracy to save face (or chin as the case may be)

We already know you care very much about your image, you reply to every post that criticizes you in multiple threads, I wouldn't put it past you to make a 30 day old twitter account, around the same time your picture first appeared on /lit/.

All of this from a lack of chin.

>>6517325

Let me introduce you to Christian Torres.

He has long since left Soundcloud and sm3na, but he had an account on both you can look at cached. Both accounts went by the name TheAntlers.

So, adding it all up, I can assume you post on /mu/, saw a black person post their photo who enjoys The Antlers, and assumed it was me.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Xav7m3FebAMJ:sm3na.is/artist/theantler+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Not only that, but here's his fucking twitter.

https://twitter.com/Christopher_01_

He's an aspiring Music Producer. And almost nothing he posts is philosophically similar to me, especially in regards to civil rights.

And here's his bandcamp!

https://cptkiddo.bandcamp.com/

He lives in Pennsylvania!

Not San Diego.

>>6517335
I've seen your fake twitter Foucault we all know it's you.

>>6517335
I always laugh when you post chinless men in an attempt to portray yourself as not being perturbed by you lack of chin.
I bet you die inside every time you post a chinless man

>>6517352

Then if you "know it's me" what have you proven? Let's say I made a twitter account to "save face" on 4chan of all places.

So...? What? What would be your next course of action? What you're trying to do here doesn't have a lot of elegance or strategy.

>>6517359

Alright. Now what?

>>6517359
notice whenever he is attacking someone he posts a picture of a chinless man but when he is trying to build himself up or defend himself he posts someone with a strong chin.

>>6517362
It's funny that you have 500 followed but not one of them favorited your tweets. How much did it cost you to get that many followers, you chinless cuck

>>6517352
Whats the story on this tripfag?

>>6517368

Is pepe a chinless man?

>>6517370

Prove it's me.

>>6517371

I irritated white nationalists and now they're accusing me of chin theft.

>>6517362
I'm not trying to do anything. All it proves is that your a sad little manlet with no chin and a goofy hat. And you're insecure about it. I'm kind of flattered you think of yourself as so important that there is a whole group of white nationalists trying desperately to track you down.

Like even now I'm contacting my secret network of spies across the US and your IP is being traced. You thought you could post some halfbaked misunderstood critique of capitalism on my literature board? think again. Your'e fucking dead chinno.

>>6517385

>All it proves

Prove it's me.

>>6517371
He started posting some misunderstood tumblr tier ad hominem arguments in political threads about two months ago. then a month later someone linked his tumblr and posted the pic of him. His tumblr gets deleted and the twitter (which is a only month old now) gets created and he links it every time someone posts his pic saying it can't be him.

>>6517388
Honestly, if it wasn't you why do you get so buttflustered every time it's posted?

>>6517396

>tumbllr-tier

You mean someone was skeptical of your claims for once.

>>6517397

Because it's irritating and it's worse post quality than you think I could ever deliver.

>>6517408
no. I mean you defend the baltimore riots saying things like all policemen should be shot and that all whites are genocidal maniacs and economics is a pseudo science and other utterly banal generalizations.

>>6517408
Multiple people, even faggy Marxists like me, think your presence on this board is regrettable. The problem is you. This board is bad enough, bro. Fuck off.

>>6517434

>no. I mean you defend the baltimore riots saying things like all policemen should be shot

I apologize for not being a liberal. Tell me, what else would you like?

Muffins?

>>6517442

So? Your answer is to make it even worse? Congratulations on achieving your goal.

>>6517453
>I apologize for not being a liberal. Tell me, what else would you like?
Political ideologies have no place on this board. Why don't you go to /pol/ and talk to some real white supremacists? then maybe you wouldn't get BTFO so much.

>be me
>I'm a marxist
>love going to /lit/ especially for the marxist ones
>go to marxist threads
>every single fucking one for the past month has had a dumbfuck tripfag
>almost all of his posts are shitposts
>he's giving leftists of all shades of red a bad rep
>mfw everytime I see him

>>6517671
*for the marxist threads
shit, typo

>>6516382
MARX'S NOT DEAD HE'S SURELY ALIVE, LIVIN ON THE INSIDE ROARIN WITH THE OPPRESSED

>responding to fuckall

Can somebody justify Leninism to me, or the early USSR and its policies leading into Stalinism?

Was the USSR actually ok before Stalin? Did it represent a healthy communism? Was war communism necessary? Could it have become anything but Stalin's dictatorship? Because I see the Paris Commune, and I see the anarchist collectives that have been tried on larger scales, and they're always crushed by outside militaries. The USSR has been demonized like crazy because of what it became, but it managed to survive the civil war, foreign invasions and WW2 where every other communist revolution that attempted something closer to democracy or anarchism resulted in defeat.

>>6517885
>Can somebody justify Leninism to me,

Well it certainly led to nomenklatura societies, and if you're prospective nomenklatura that's a good thing.

>or the early USSR and its policies leading into Stalinism?

It was a more progressive capitalism than under the Czar.

>Was the USSR actually ok before Stalin?

No, it was still capitalism, and crushed worker's organisations.

>Did it represent a healthy communism?

Wage labour existed.

>Was war communism necessary?

Without it the nomenklatura would have fallen, and far right wing reactionaries would have taken over Russia.

>Could it have become anything but Stalin's dictatorship?

It might have become Bukharin's.

>Because I see the Paris Commune, and I see the anarchist collectives that have been tried on larger scales, and they're always crushed by outside militaries.

I think it is fairer to say that the Spanish anarchist collectives were crushed by internal militaries, and the same with the Soviet anarchist collectives.

>The USSR has been demonized like crazy because of what it became, but it managed to survive the civil war, foreign invasions and WW2 where every other communist revolution that attempted something closer to democracy or anarchism resulted in defeat.

Capitalism, including one man management, by 1921 is a defeat.

Dialectic History > Material history

>>6518263
If not for Stalin, there would be no USSR; there would be just a fractured Russia.

>>6514518
I was reading Nick Land.

I realized the struggle could not be stopped, and learned to love capital in the form of the inevitable technocommmercial singularity, when the market becomes a truly hyper-accelerated form of AI and makes humanity obsolete.