/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18247275]

So, basically, if we wanted to make an extreme summary, we could say that leftists believe that all the evil of today lies in (and derives from) the "structure" of the system, whereas rightists believe that someone in the flesh is guilty and consciously responsible for it.
(As a side note, it is interesting to notice that tables have turned over time: Marxists of the past blamed the greedy capitalist in the flesh, while conservatives were very critical of how the economic system in itself had taken a bad turn).
Now, we can be pretty sure that the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. It is not counterintuitive to think that a very harmful and perverse system has generated by itself, by necessity, at some point in history, and that someone who was smart enough and malicious took advantage from it and has consistently been doing so until today. Both parts present convincing arguments and have their reasons to believe in their respective theory.
What are the most serious and reliable books written in the present century, that best embody these two opposed conceptions?

[Anonymous No.18247280]

>>18247275
This book is wrong about some things but when I bring it up I’m attacked by national socialists who care more for ideologies than truth

[Anonymous No.18247284]

>>18247275
>muh central banking
/pol/ retard meme. The Federal Reserve should unironically run the US.

[Anonymous No.18247295]

>>18247280
What is it wrong about?
>>18247284
It wasn't funny the last 500 times you posted it and it isn't now.

[Anonymous No.18247314]

>>18247284
It already does.

[Anonymous No.18247361]

>>18247280
I mean, if you've got some counterarguments, I'd personally be glad to hear them.
Not natsoc though, just a fascist.

[Anonymous No.18247373]

>>18247275
>leftists believe the evil of today derives from the structure of the system
anything by Rosseau
>rightists believe that someone in the flesh is guilty and consciously responsible for it
probably Burke for this one.
Sowell makes this comparison in the "conflict of visions", a thesis which underlies all his other major works, particularly "Intellectuals and Society." Leftists have the "anointed vision", aka evil is from imperfect institutions so just perfect the institution, versus the opposing "constrained vision", aka evil is inherent and the best thing you can do is mitigate it by adjusting the incentives of people, but everything is a trade off ultimately. He's decidedly on the constrained side.

[Anonymous No.18247408]

>>18247275
what are the chance of me getting a politically sensitive book and my copy was tampered with ?

[Anonymous No.18247455]

>>18247280
>I’m attacked by national socialists
Why? This book puts Hitler in a realistic light which is more positive than most historians. Sure it might not be HUR DUR 14888 but it shows the good aspects of the Germans economic system.

[OP No.18247525]

>>18247373
>Sowell makes this comparison in the "conflict of visions", a thesis which underlies all his other major works, particularly "Intellectuals and Society." Leftists have the "anointed vision", aka evil is from imperfect institutions so just perfect the institution, versus the opposing "constrained vision", aka evil is inherent and the best thing you can do is mitigate it by adjusting the incentives of people, but everything is a trade off ultimately. He's decidedly on the constrained side.
Super interesting, thank you. I have always read single books that endorse one or the other position, but never a book that compares the two and takes stock of them.

>everything is a trade off ultimately but he's decidedly on the constrained side
Exactly my opinion and tendency.

[Anonymous No.18247650]

>>18247280
I know nothing of this topic, but I'm always skeptical about these kinda books, what's it wrong it in particular?

[Anonymous No.18247656]

>>18247650
>I'm always skeptical about these kinda books
Have you ever asked yourself why?

[Anonymous No.18247707]

The major difference between left and right is that the left wants to fight for change while the right wants to be left alone.

[OP No.18247733]

>>18247707
You're right, but the difference I outlined only concerns the interpretation of economic problems.

[Anonymous No.18247752]

>>18247275
>whereas rightists believe that someone in the flesh is guilty and consciously responsible for it.
''Rightists'' don't have to believe that at all
''Rightists'' is too vague.
OP,I'm sorry,but this thread is trash,let it die.

[OP No.18247771]

>>18247752
The reference is clearly to contemporary right-wing people like those you find on 4chan. Call them alt-rightists if you wish.

Take more time to ponder the thread next time.

[Anonymous No.18247834]

>>18247275
>So, basically, if we wanted to make an extreme summary, we could say that leftists believe that all the evil of today lies in (and derives from) the "structure" of the system, whereas rightists believe that someone in the flesh is guilty and consciously responsible for it.

This is at least partly due to neurology.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201113141808.htm

[OP No.18247890]

>>18247834
I'm not reading that shit. It should be very easy to understand that, if some scientists say "it's natural" and some scientists say "it's artificial", people will make up their own minds. No need of an academic paper on this obvious dynamic.

[Anonymous No.18247905]

>>18247890
>>18247771
Last 2 digits are OP's IQ
If dubs then last three

[Anonymous No.18248445]

>>18247314
Is that book legit?

[Anonymous No.18248694]

>>18247525
I would really recommend reading the essay "A Conflict of Visions" then--you can probably find a PDF somewhere online. If you like that you might move to "Intellectuals and Society", which contains the essays in "A Conflict of Visions" and "Intellectuals and Race". Sowell is an economist, so a lot of time is spent in that book on looking at empirics and comparing them to notions presented by intellectuals at universities (which means more or less disproving them). But the more theoretical stuff underlies it and is discussed in some places. He does have a couple chapters on "Intellectuals and Law", in which he presents a critique of Rawls's theory of justice . He argues that Rawls is an anointed vision guy seeking a form of "cosmic justice" labeled as "social justice", and in reality his system/concept of justice is neither desirable nor achievable.

[OP No.18248969]

>>18248694
>"Intellectuals and Society", which contains the essays in "A Conflict of Visions" and "Intellectuals and Race"
Oh, so the entirety of "A Conflict of Visions" is included in "Intellectuals and Society"?

Anyway the guy looks like a based True Neutral that bewilders the left just by being black

[Anonymous No.18248996]

>>18247275
>leftists believe that all the evil of today lies in (and derives from) the "structure" of the system
>rightists believe that someone in the flesh is guilty and consciously responsible for it.
They're both correct
t. third positionist

[Anonymous No.18249018]

>>18247771
I'd say the flesh to blame is more realistic represents the person or people who implemented the system that creates the perversion of society, not society itself needs to be changed. Which are real people.

[Anonymous No.18249019]

>>18247280
>who care more for ideologies than truth
nazis are cringe but there's nothing wrong with this

[Anonymous No.18249026]

>>18248445
Why do you think they print more money and don't want the gold standard? They give themselves the money and we pay the inflationary tax.

[Anonymous No.18249036]

>>18249019
Truth is more important than belief. It's why you can't believe your way out of being a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.18249045]

>>18249036
World history disagrees with you

[Anonymous No.18249048]

>>18249036
>you can't believe your way out of being a fucking idiot
yes you can

[Anonymous No.18249068]

>>18248996
Oh! I forgot to respond the rest.
>Now, we can be pretty sure that the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.
not really
>that someone who was smart enough and malicious took advantage from it and has consistently been doing so until today.
The mercantile class, during the XVIII century, through the money they acquired by usury, started buying land from peasants. These are called the enclosure acts in Britain. The peasants lost their self-sustenance; the only value, now, that they could sell was their manual labor.
The whole process I just described is called the proletarializition of the classes.
By taking advantage of this, the finance class gained prestige and influence that lasts until this day; not by intelect, strength, or virtue, but by treachery and mischievous acts.
>What are the most serious and reliable books written in the present century, that best embody these two opposed conceptions?
Any third positionist/reactionary. But maybe specifically, "Why I'm not a liberal" by Jonathan Bowden

[Anonymous No.18249085]

>>18247280
Meh as long as it turns the people against the bankers it's a good book. 5 stars.

[Anonymous No.18249100]

>>18249045
Really? World history is a series of beliefs being questioned and dismantled. Over time all beliefs are brought down.
>>18249048
Reality is the cure to belief

[Anonymous No.18249099]

>>18247280
I have seen lots of people on this site say the same thing, but they never answer me when I ask what specifically it is wrong about. My first assumption would be the blind trust in Libya's self-reported statistics regarding their own prosperity - it's right to be sceptical about that sort of thing. Is there anything else?

[Anonymous No.18249113]

>>18249100
>Really? World history is a series of beliefs being questioned and dismantled.
That's not what I meant and you know it. Never in history has "truth" prevailed over belief.
>Over time all beliefs are brought down.
By other beliefs.

[Anonymous No.18249162]

>>18249113
Belief is the absence of evidence or faith in faulty evidence, not what we think.

[Anonymous No.18249217]

>>18249162
Okay Dawkins sperg, how does that change what I said?

[Anonymous No.18249275]

>>18247752
Thatsl what rightists think when they are seriouls and don't just mess around on 4chan and be political for jokes or socially.

[Anonymous No.18249292]

>>18249019
You're actually retarded

[Anonymous No.18249306]

>>18249162
Sir, I believe you have forgotten to tip le fedora

[Anonymous No.18249309]

>>18249162
Or just faith in general

[Anonymous No.18249323]

Take the Austrian pill.

[Anonymous No.18249522]

>>18249217
You don't need to replace belief with another belief.

[Anonymous No.18249532]

>>18249522
Like I said, world history proves you wrong. It's what happens every time a belief goes out of fashion, it gets replaced by another belief. Like how christianity has been replaced first by neoliberalism/scientism and now by wokeism.

[Anonymous No.18249555]

>>18249532
So do we believe the earth is spherical or know it to be so?

[Anonymous No.18249559]

>>18247408
depends on where you buy it

[Anonymous No.18249564]

>>18249555
There are some people that profess to know it, you and I believe it, unless you've been to space to verify for yourself.

[Anonymous No.18249580]

After reading hundreds of pages of Marx and more Marx than 99% of actual Marxists have read, I'm convinced that Marx was a deep state plant set loose amid the proletariat to ensure that the worker's revolution will never happen. There's no other logical explanation for his having such a clear and focused view of the problems and having such a pants on head retarded solution for them.

[Anonymous No.18249582]

>>18249564
You don't need to see go to space to know it. Your problem is you don't understand it so you think others cannot either thus everyone must believe because you lack the information to know. Sorry but you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.18249590]

>>18249580
Anything that involves the workers rising up is destined to fail to the workers getting compensated for work.

[Anonymous No.18249608]

>>18247275
>Marxists of the past blamed the greedy capitalist in the flesh
Not really. Marx, for example, in Das Kapital volume 1, is very critique of some Capitalists, in the flesh, he even name them, but never loose sight that the level of development of productive forces, determines a certain level of commerce and consumption, which determines a certain level of civil society (classes, family, orders), which determines a certain political state. In short, the base determines the superstructures, and history proves it. Bad things in history always happened after the commodity has developped itself to a superior level. E.G: the english and french revolution, happened because Capitalism developped itself to a point where the merchants took over. the merchand took over when commodity developped itself a a critical point. They, the merchants, didn't took over in the 12th century. But around the 18th century (english and french revolution).
>and that someone who was smart enough and malicious took advantage from it and has consistently been doing so until today.
If someone smart and malicious enough can take advantage from the system, then the system is to blame. A good system is a system where no one can take advantage of the system.

[Anonymous No.18249612]

>>18249582
Nope, you're the idiot. I understand it very well. Have you ever verified that the earth is spherical? If not, you merely believe it based on what others around you do. You merely believe that the maths and physics work the way they do, you don't know for certain, unless you work in very specific fields in order to verify.
Sure, I believe the earth is spherical, otherwise a lot of assumptions about how our world works would no longer make sense. That still doesn't mean I know for certain.
The point was however, that we could discard belief for truth. The current socio-political enviroment should tell you that is a pipe dream, since according to your logic we should be more rational/oriented towards truth than ever before, yet turn on your TV and you'll see the same shit as hundreds of years before, just amplified and in a new form.

[Anonymous No.18249619]

>>18249608
You don't know what capitalism means

[Anonymous No.18249651]

>>18249612
>I understand it very well
Clearly not. Verifying the truth value of mathematics and the roundness of the Earth are pretty easy.

[Anonymous No.18249653]

>>18249612
Yes I have personally verified for myself that the earth is spherical, intentionally and unintentionally. Irrespective of other factors that rely upon the spherical nature of earth. This in fact does make you certain. Your desperate desire to see the earth from space as the most definitive proof is in fact a fallacy. It's more evidence yes but it is not a singular piece of evidence that determines truth from belief but the accumulation of evidence and none to contradict. You simply lack the information or knowledge to be able to understand truth from belief and lack the knowledge to identify truth. Everything you're saying as evidence is fallacious and projection.

[Anonymous No.18249662]

>>18249651
Only if you accept that the mathematics work the way they do, which is a belief.
Now address the rest of my post, faggot.
>The point was however, that we could discard belief for truth. The current socio-political enviroment should tell you that is a pipe dream, since according to your logic we should be more rational/oriented towards truth than ever before, yet turn on your TV and you'll see the same shit as hundreds of years before, just amplified and in a new form.

[Anonymous No.18249670]

>>18249068
>By taking advantage of this, the finance class gained prestige and influence that lasts until this day; not by intelect, strength, or virtue, but by treachery and mischievous acts.
Sure, but could it have happened any other way? If it did never happened, England would not be one of the most powerful country of the world, but a third world country. Regarding of the development of productive forces, from the enclosures to imperialist wars, to colonization, to making children work 80 hours a week, to then, in the 20th centuries, new commodity development, like outsourcing in thrid world countries, mass immigration (to lower the wages), feminism (lower the wages as well).
Sure it is a Capitalist in the flesh who will do all of this, at one point. But if this Capitalism doesn't do it, an other would do it. Especially since Capitalism is a very competitive system, and if you are not competitive, you just get bankrupt. So in a way, due to competitiveness, Capitalists are almost forced to act egoistically.
The only way to stop all this, is to abolish commodity.

[Anonymous No.18249671]

>>18249662
>Only if you accept that the mathematics work the way they do, which is a belief.
And? The roundness of the Earth and the correctness of certain algebras is empirically viable.

[Anonymous No.18249681]

>>18249662
>belief
you are using this as a scare word in order to reinforce an post-modern paradigm of irony, so by definition you are a gay retard and as such it is not necessary to take you seriously.

[Anonymous No.18249683]

>>18249662
Because some people believe does not mean all people believe and that you can only believe as opposed to know. It's all in your head, you believe that to be true irrespective of evidence, you're caught in your own feedback loop of idiocy.

[Anonymous No.18249684]

>>18249653
>our desperate desire to see the earth from space as the most definitive proof is in fact a fallacy. It's more evidence yes but it is not a singular piece of evidence that determines truth from belief but the accumulation of evidence and none to contradict.
Unless you have verified all those together, you still believe instead of know. I'll believe you if you say you have but I won't know.
>You simply lack the information or knowledge to be able to understand truth from belief and lack the knowledge to identify truth. Everything you're saying as evidence is fallacious and projection.
Oh, the irony. You seem to hold that because we work off certain assumptions, they must be true. As I said, world history proves you wrong. An internally coherent and consistent belief system is just as infallible as your "truth". You seem to miss my point completely.
Now address the rest of my post, faggot.
>The point was however, that we could discard belief for truth. The current socio-political enviroment should tell you that is a pipe dream, since according to your logic we should be more rational/oriented towards truth than ever before, yet turn on your TV and you'll see the same shit as hundreds of years before, just amplified and in a new form.

[Anonymous No.18249691]

>>18249612
I was thinking the other day about how insane it would sound to propose the heliocentric globe model to a society which believed in a flat earth.
>so you're actually on this giant ball, and the ball is spinning rapidly in a void, circling round another giant spinning ball, and that whole system is circling around another gigantic spinning agglomeration of matter at even faster speeds
I mean it sounds practically Satanic. You take the normality of life, up and down, the static unmoving ground, and you just throw everything into devious spinning directionless lunacy.

[Anonymous No.18249698]

>>18249684
If you believe me that's because you lack the ability or knowledge to understand. Belief is the outcome of faulty process to identify evidence. You don't need to know that I know, you could ask me how or why I know and test for yourself, but you can't ask me that because then you would have to confront actual evidence which contradicts your infantile understanding of belief. There is no irony among fools.

[Anonymous No.18249699]

>>18249671
Unless you've done the calculations yourself, you merely believe it based off what others have done
>>18249681
No, I'm merely pointing out that truth as the other anon put it is a pipe dream, retard
>>18249683
You believe too. You believe you have truth. That doesn't make it truth. It could be, but we don't know. There are some things we can know, but they are much more scarce than you'd think. You seem to miss the point completely.
You still haven't addressed the issue.

[Anonymous No.18249707]

>>18249691
Heliocentric just means sun is the center not the earth. The Greeks already knew the earth was spherical from observation and mathematics, it was like you said the heliocentric model they grappled with.

[Anonymous No.18249713]

>>18249698
>If you believe me that's because you lack the ability or knowledge to understand.
No, it's because I'm not there to verify what you have said. I have to take your word for it.
>Belief is the outcome of faulty process to identify evidence.
No, that's autism. Belief and truth are not mutually exclusive.
>ou don't need to know that I know, you could ask me how or why I know and test for yourself, but you can't ask me that because then you would have to confront actual evidence which contradicts your infantile understanding of belief.
No, your autistic ass doesn't understand the point I'm making.

[Anonymous No.18249754]

>>18249713
Belief is the antithesis of truth, one starts from a position of unknown and gathers evidence then from evidence ascribes theory to explain all the evidence and in the absence of debate or contradictory theory (from other evidence) that is what we know. Belief on the other hand works the opposite direction, manufacturing of evidence, ignores evidence or simply refuses to concede contradiction so it can never be true. Yes you can be wrong with evidence but it takes sufficient evidence and explanation to shift that perspective and ultimately following that process gets you as close to truth as possible from a position of unknown. If you have criticism it's from the period between the aggregate of evidence being accumulated. You then might say well we could find evidence that the earth is flat and at that moment we all slide off the face of the earth.

[Anonymous No.18249765]

>>18249699
>Unless you've done the calculations yourself
I have. Again, this is really easy to do.

[Anonymous No.18249844]

>>18249707
That's why I said 'heliocentric globe model' to indicate both the shape of the world and its relation to the sun.

[Anonymous No.18249874]

Wasn't this supposed to be a discussion about base/superstructure, instead of a discussion about the shape of the earth?

[Anonymous No.18249899]

>>18249844
>>18249874
Yes

[Anonymous No.18249946]

poisoning the well the book

[Anonymous No.18249976]

>>18249670

[Anonymous No.18249989]

>>18249946
I believe there was a shill campaign to promote this book here and on twitter. I can't imagine who is shilling it but the way and frequency with which it was posted made me think it was not organic posting. It could just be some guy or group who actually think it's true and want to spread the word I suppose.

[Anonymous No.18250049]

>>18247284
>The Federal Reserve should unironically run the US.

found the establishment bootlicker

[Anonymous No.18250056]

>>18247295
Some things

[Anonymous No.18250062]

>>18249989
The central bankers conspiracy books are not new. Marx himself talk about central banks, (the bank of England) in Das kapital volume 1, and the consequences of such institutions on the proletariat.
Eustace Meullins wrote the secret of the federal reserve in 1952.

[Anonymous No.18250076]

>>18250049
Esthablishment or not, he is right in the fact that central fiat money is indeed stable. Free banking would work, but would generate much instability in the value of the different currencies. . in my opinion, free banking would be unstable, like the different cryptocurrencies are unstable. Value storage cryptos are some sort of free banking.

[Anonymous No.18250115]

>>18250062
I wasn't commenting on the veracity or commonness of the claims, just on the particular pattern of posting I saw with that book. I had never heard about it once on here and then it started popping up all over the place as well as on twitter, with OPs that didn't want to even discuss it at all, very typical shill behavior.

The banks are obviously part of the picture but the notion that it is just 'central banks' at the very nexus of the power structure seems a bit off to me. I think there must be really just mafias at the very top of the pyramid. Mostly non-public groups who control banks, corporations, governments, the 'secret societies' like the Masons, the press etc. through means legal and illegal. Probably based around specific families.

[Anonymous No.18250119]

>>18250076
What about a fiat currency with a fixed amount of dollars, essentially to emulate a sort of ideal gold standard?

[OP No.18250149]

>>18249608
Obviously I expected the annoying reply by the autistic Marxist beginning with a fussy "Not really."

The fact that Marx overestimated the superstructure of socio-economic reality does not, in any way, put him on an equal footing as those who are called "liberals" nowadays. The Marxian call for "revolution" is, by itself, sufficient evidence that he did blame someone in the flesh. Otherwise, you do not rebel against a "structure". You do not fight against something which is abstract and immaterial. On the contrary, the watered-down version of today's "Marxism" (you can't really call it Marxism though, doing so would be an insult towards Marxism) specifically invokes a change of the system on a structural basis, a form of """action""" that would ensure the maintenance of peace. How this is supposed to be achieved, remains a mystery (and the very reason why modern leftists, primarily the academia, are pathetic and despised by everyone with half a brain). Maybe they mean an intervention on institutions—great, but how do you do it when democracy is completely dismantled and the ones in charge hold absolute power? This is the point. When in order to change things you have to defeat someone, because there's no other way to succeed, you ask for revolution, not "structural change". And—yeah, revolution is precisely what Marx wanted. Thus, he did know that someone in the flesh is responsible for all the evil, BEYOND the intrinsic problematic nature of the structure. Contemporary leftists, instead, are still desperately trying to deny any guilt and responsibility—if not that of the human race as a whole, a concept that is utterly childish—and charge the structure for everything. Consequently, they disapprove any desire for or attempt to revolution, preaching a ridiculous minimalistic and dosed intervention at the institutional level. They scream against the wall. And deep down we all know why they act like this, why they are like this. They fear the spectre of racism and the union of peoples; they fear war, violence, massacre. My comment? They are too weak and effeminate to understand that certain phases of history need blood in order to let something new come to life.

[Anonymous No.18250786]

>>18250076
Gold standard is more stable than inflationary fiat which robs you of purchasing power. Have you read anything on central banking, banking or gold standard?