[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 507 KB, 894x564, sargon of akkad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.7034434 [Reply] [Original]

itt: contemporary intellectuals

>> No.7034443
File: 48 KB, 640x480, 266.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>7034434
the voice of our generation

>> No.7034451
File: 74 KB, 599x449, ws0vWwK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>7034443
such a beautiful lady

>> No.7034456

I HATE YOUTUBE VLOGGERS SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> No.7034460

>>7034451
Don't appreciate the transphobia implicit in this post.

>> No.7034468

>>7034434
Based Sargon.

I bet if he were born in Roman times he could have easily been named the successor of an extant emperor and risen to power. He would be remembered today as a great leader and philosopher; hopefully he isn't lost to history in our contemporary buzz.

>> No.7034530

>>7034468
If he is remembered, it'll be as a slovenly nerd that moans about viji games and women.

>> No.7034536

>>7034530
Seriously. If you went a genuine intellectual with the right opinions on video games and women, check out orgyofthewill.net

>> No.7034556

>>7034530
Reminder that many revered philosophers through history were misogynists or at least held conservative values when it came to women.

>> No.7034561

>>7034556
Wonder how well-read the guy in the OP actually is

>> No.7034578

The greatest intellectuals of the 21st century so far are Piero Scaruffi, Icycalm and Rei Koz.

>> No.7034586

>>7034578
Rei can be pretty creative sometimes IMO

>> No.7034589

>>7034561
The poster or Sargon? Sargon doesn't seem very well read at all.

>> No.7034595

>>7034589
He's quite well read, at least in European history. He randomly works in history in his videos all the time.

>> No.7034602

>>7034595
This is a literature board though and if he hasn't read the meme trilogy then we have no reason to talk about him

>> No.7034621

What we need is a new Harold Bloom, but preferably one who isn't a Jew.

>> No.7034625

>>7034589
>>7034595
sargon seems insanely stupid, like I thought he was a parody of self important 4channers/redditors at first and I still think he might be

>> No.7034626
File: 1.36 MB, 960x540, AOSJSi3.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

this guy no doubt fucks

>> No.7034633

Whatever you guys might have to say about Sargon, he's good at debunking the feminist myths that infest mainstream left-wing political discourse.

>> No.7034635

>>7034434
is that really him? lmbo

his youPodtubecast suck. it's just him reading tumblr posts and saying 'fucking' a lot

he a dumb a$$ niqqa

>> No.7034639

>>7034589
>>7034595
He seems to hold some rather bunk historical interpretations, but it would be hard to deny he doesn't try to read up on both sides of his subjects. The guy probably reads more Marxist-Feminist literature than many of the Marxist-Feminists he argues with.

t. not Sargon

>> No.7034641

>>7034639
he does try*

>> No.7034643

>>7034625
Oh no, he's quite humble, populist, etc. Generally enlightened fellow. Rejecting this new wave of sjw/feminism/marxist bullshit doesn't make one stupid.

>>7034635
He mostly talks about general news stories. Maybe one or two of his videos are about tumblr.

>> No.7034647

Wonder if Sargon is voting for Corbyn

>> No.7034669

>>7034643
not being able to separate feminism from marxism does make you stupid though. hes barely smarter than stefan molyneux and that guy's legally retarded

>> No.7034683

You realize talking about this guy here is about the same as talking about The Amazing Atheist, right?

>> No.7034705

Maybe I'll make another thread about Sam Hyde just to counterbalance this horse crap.

>> No.7034713

>>7034669
Lets stop pretending. feminism and marxism are the same bullshit.

>> No.7034717

>>7034683
False equivalency: the post

TheAmazingAtheist is literally an uneducated hick whose most popular videos consist of him 'debunking' barely-literate messages he got from Christians.
Sargon is a fairly normal person in terms of personal accomplishments before going into the 'Youtube' scene; and again, he actually reads/researches the subjects he talks about. I don't recall the AmazingAtheist ever being invited as a representative at discussion summits.

>> No.7034723

>>7034713
You seem like the sort of person who watches Youtube videos as an intellectual exercise.

>> No.7034727

>>7034717
I think you're just impressed by his British accent.

>> No.7034749

>>7034713
Marxism is kewl. Feminism not so kewl.

>> No.7034752

>>7034727
fucking this. explains dawkins, hitchens popularity in america.

>> No.7034754

>>7034752
And also TotalBiscuit.

>> No.7034764

We all know that TotalBiscuit is the true gamer intellectual.

>> No.7034771

>>7034754
and the economist lol

yanks love being talked down to by a brit, especially an oxbridge aristocrat

>> No.7034776

>>7034752
Hitchens is British? I had always assumed he sounded that way because he was just really drunk all the time.

>> No.7034778

>>7034771
My knowledge of English society and culture extends only as far as popular scientists and YouTube personalities, but I'll take your word for it.

>> No.7034815

>>7034727
I think he does have good diction. I go to uni in the UK though, so I'm around those accents all the time.
I first found him via a series of autoplays after watching something absurd like the UUUU EP.

Dawkins' accent is downright ridiculous, I did a double take when I first heard him speaking.

>> No.7034817

>>7034723
Nah, I read books.

>>7034749
They are the same sort of pseudoscience. feminism is just marxism with the noun class replaced with gender.

>>7034771
Even the smartest Brits are pretty dumb. Their favorite past times are smoking fags and getting into weekly football riots.

>> No.7034831

>>7034817
>I read books.
Youtube comments sections aren't "books".

>> No.7034864

>>7034635
I should have mentioned this earlier, but I can't believe people still say "lmbo".

>> No.7034875

Sargon is really good at missing the point of things completely, but he seems aight.
Definitely smarter than most of the people in this thread.

>> No.7034878

>>7034817
Gender doesnt' exist, however class does

>> No.7034882

>>7034536
>If you went another slovenly nerd that moans about video games and women, check out orgyofthewill.net
FTFY
and fuck off already, icycalm

>> No.7034887

>>7034882
Icy's fuckin ripped, nigger, and he ain't a moaner.

>> No.7034889

>>7034817
Have you read the meme trilogy? [litmus test]

>> No.7034896

Icycalm is the only genuine Stoic of the 21st century.

>> No.7034908

>>7034887
And I'm Vladimir Putin.

>> No.7034916

>>7034878
>Gender doesnt' exist
>class does

This is like spooks colliding with spooks and creating superspooks.

>> No.7034922

>>7034908
I bet he could beat you up if he wanted.

>> No.7034939

>>7034831
Lol agreed.

>>7034878
Nope. But thanks for proving my point that feminism is just marxism.

>>7034889
2/3, I can't stand Irish lit. I make up for that by reading moby dick, blood meridian, new sun, and ada.

>> No.7034941

I'm craving brownies rn.

>> No.7034948

>>7034939
Feminism only exists to reinforce harmful gender roles.

>> No.7034960

>>7034948
feminism only exists to feed marxist poison to children that believe they are really helping the poor helpless suffering women.

>> No.7034967

>>7034939
>I can't stand Irish lit
>read... blood meridian

DROPPED

Ireland has been the greatest producer of English lit in the last ~1.5 centuries outside the meme countries.

>> No.7034986

>>7034967
Nah.

>> No.7034995

>>7034939
everyone has read Moby Dick, Blood Meridian, New Sun, and Ada too. finish the damn Joyce book

also if you sincerely believe that "feminism is just marxism with gender instead of class" you're really dumb. like dumb to the point that arguing with you is pointless.

>> No.7035003

>>7034995
Nah, I don't like Irish lit.

Its the same fucking thing. All feminists are marxists, some marxists are feminists. Grow up, no one is falling for your bullshit anymore.

>> No.7035005

>>7034960
That's the point: females specifically as a group of people aren't particularly poor, helpless or suffering, which is why feminism is shit. In fact, they're much better off than men, on average. Feminism has nothing to do with returning control of the means of production to the proletariat.

>> No.7035015

>>7035003
modern mainstream feminism is overwhelmingly neoliberal and anti-marxist. if you don't understand the distinction between liberals and marxists/leftists you're dumb and poorly read, but we all already knew that

>> No.7035017

>>7035005
Whether or not feminism is "true" doesn't matter. Its the exact same marxist analysis of political economy applied to gender and sexuality. Any besides, marxism really isn't about "returning control of the means of production to the proletariat", its just an exhaustive and generally primitive critique of capitalism. marxism ≠ communism.

Something something I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

>> No.7035025

>>7035015
In a round about way, marxist/leftists are the real liberals. What they present as "capitalism" is really statism. If a liberal is someone that supports "capitalism", than marxists/leftists are the real liberals, because all they want is a stronger, more sophisticated, more tyrannical state. Socialists in general have hijacked the true proletarian spirit, and have done so much damage to it its almost shameful to be working class. I'm working class, and an intellectual, but I don't want to kill anyone over lies, so marxism can fuck off. Its not that I'm poorly read, its that I don't except fucking marxist bullshit.

The majority of mainstream feminists call themselves marxists, the majority use marxists arguments, its just replacing class with gender. feminism is marxism.

>> No.7035032

>>7035025
you should read like, literally anything about this. read a wikipedia entry. it'd be better than what you're working with right now.

>> No.7035034

>>7035025
Not all Marxists are Leninist or Stalinist. You do realize this right? At it's most pure, (as in most related to the ideas of Marx himself), Marxism is calling for a stateless society.

It's pretty clear you've never read "fucking marxist bullshit", because you clearly don't know what you're talking about when you try to talk about it. You sound like someone who's knowledge of Marxism comes entirely from reading /pol/ threads.

>> No.7035036

>>7035032
I'm well read on this subject. Have you never read something, than not agreed with it? So everything you've ever read, you just accept as truth?

>> No.7035057

>>7035034
Siiiiiiiiiiiiigh. communism is "stateless" only if you accept the marxist definition of the state, which is only valid if class theory is correct, which is only valid if labor theory of value is correct, which is only valid if class theory is correct, and so only, circle logic till the end of time. The democracy at the core of communism is their version of the state, no crying about workers or means of production or whatever changes the fact that its still tyranny of the majority. Might makes right. Which is the foundation of every state since the beginning of time. communism is not "stateless", even under its own definition of what the state is, and would be in fact a state with a greater scope of powers than any that has ever existed.

>> No.7035067
File: 11 KB, 400x308, miltonfriedman1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>7035015
>mfw neoliberalism sustains itself by absorbing and monetising whatever the current leftist cause du jour is
feels good that you're so easy to placate

>> No.7035070

Sargon is good, but I prefer thunderf00t.

>> No.7035073

>>7035070
thunderf00t has been slipping as of late. He keeps repeating the same few ideas over and over. Most of his Anita videos blend together.

>> No.7035086

>>7035073
That is true.

>> No.7035090

>>7035070
>>7035073
>>7035086
These guys are all gigantic faggots and you're no better wathing them than you are Anita sarkessian

>> No.7035109

>>7035057
Communism isn't defined by Marx. He kept it intentionally vague. His conception of a stateless society is one where there is no need for a state because the most accepted purpose of the state at the time (as laid out by people like John Locke) was to secure private property. No private property, no need for a state. You'd know this if you had ever actually read Marx, rather than just going off assumptions. So it isn't circular, it works off the definition of the state established by classical liberalism.

You're reguritating half-baked criticism. It's not only that you've never read Marx, you're working off of definitions presented to you by people who have never read Marx. That's why you don't even understand what the Marxist definition of what a state is. The Marxist definition of a state is synonymous with the libertarian definition of a state. The difference is that libertarian ideology (ie classical liberalism) privileges private property, and thus requires a state to secure that property and arbitrate disputes over it. Marxism does away with this minimal state because there's no need to secure something held in common. If everyone owns it, no one can take it from another.

>> No.7035112

>>7034939
>can't stand Irish lit
i can't stand you
get the fuck off my board

>> No.7035121

>>7034434

smh fam tbh.

>> No.7035125

>>7035090
Lol agreed.

>>7035112
Lol, its not your board, you own nothing.

>> No.7035133

>>7035125
>its not your board, you own nothing.
None of us own it.
Hooray! 4chan is a communist utopia!

>> No.7035151

>>7035109
> Communism isn't defined by Marx

Yea I know what in an earlier reply I said "marxism ≠ communism."

Public property is just the private property of the state. The communism collective would violently defend it's private property, violently oppress other property norms, and confiscate capital goods produced by individual workers. Its still the state, just with more powers. If the nation state's army enforces it property norm, the communist property norm would be greater, because everyone would be required to be in the army/state/collective.

Yea, its circular logic. The premises are made to serve the conclusion. If the first principle is labor theory of labor (or as Locke might say, labor origin of property), than the conclusion should be stateless capitalism, not communism. marxism is thus unscientific, the evidence is changed to service the conclusion.

I've read most everything by marx and Engels. I tried to read capital but got just disgusted at the style and mysticism after the first chapter. I've read enough of secondary sources do understand it though. Again, you're working with this assumption that criticism of marxism can only come from ignorance. Now ask yourself, have you ever came across any criticism of marxism that you didn't automatically disregard as being ignorant? If your answer is "no", than you're a brainwashed religion zealot. The libertarian definition of the state is "the legal monopoly over violence to enforce a property norm in a geographical area." By that definition that communist collective is a state. The communist collective would violently secure capital goods created by individuals, people making their own stuff and trying to live their own lives are "capitalists" and need to be destroyed.

>> No.7035152

>>7035133
moot built it, moot owns it, 4chan is stateless capitalism.

>> No.7035178

>>7035151
It isn't "circular". Indeed your reasoning is circular. Let's deconstruct your argument to see why.
>Public property is just the private property of the state.
This assumes the existence of a state in a communist society. If you assume the existence of a state, you're unable to come to a conclusion that is inclusive of a stateless society.

>The communism collective would violently defend it's private property,
The communist collective wouldn't need to defend property, because all property is held in common. There is literally no one to defend it from.

>ts still the state, just with more powers.
Only if you use a definition of a state as society. But society and state are two different things with different functions and different definitions. Perhaps the root of your misunderstanding is this conflation.

>everyone would be required to be in the army/state/collective
Everyone who is part of the society would be part of the collective. Those who decided to be individualists would be free to live in the woods somewhere, in isolation. I can't see this as being particularly advantageous from a standpoint of survival, but there's nothing inherently prescriptive against it in Marxism.

> the conclusion should be stateless capitalism, not communism.
Strangely your idea of what communism would look like largely resembles stateless capitalism. "Might makes right", "Tyranny of the masses", and corporate authortarian power structures are the end result of stateless capitalism (or anarcho-capitalism if you prefer). Once again, your fitting your premises to match your already settled upon conclusion. Then projecting this problem onto others. In communism, there is no authoritarian hierarchy. There is no army, there is no state. It's an anarchanistic society, but lacks the corporate power structures that are inherent to capitalism (which incidentally make anarcho-capitalism far closer to the self-contradictory social organization you're painting a communist society to be).

>marxism is thus unscientific, the evidence is changed to service the conclusion.
Marxism isn't a scientific theory, as it isn't based on repeatable experimentation. No one claims it to be. On the other hand, you're implicitly arguing for a scientific political theory, when literally none exist. Politics aren't science. This is a pretty ridiculous thread of thought, so lets just move on.

>'ve read most everything by marx and Engels.
Doubtful, considering the next line you admit not having gotten through the first chapter of Das Kapital, which is the culmination of Marxist theory.

>I've read enough of secondary sources do understand it
So you admit to reaching your conclusions through biased sources and taking them at face value. Gotcha.

>you're working with this assumption that criticism of marxism can only come from ignorance.
No, I see your criticism as ignorant, and filled with problems. There is informed criticism of Marxism. You haven't supplied it.

>> No.7035185

>>7035151
>The libertarian definition of the state is "the legal monopoly over violence to enforce a property norm in a geographical area." By that definition that communist collective is a state. The communist collective would violently secure capital goods created by individuals, people making their own stuff and trying to live their own lives are "capitalists" and need to be destroyed.

The word "legal" is the key term here. With the libertarian conception of the state, law exists to protect property. Without private property, there is no need for a legal system to enforce private ownership or arbitrate disputes over ownership of private property. So again, as I've said before, your idea that communism must be a stateless society, is based on your misguided assumptions about what the Marxist conception of the state is.

Believe me, if your position wasn't so obviously based on ignorance and stupidity, I wouldn't be arguing against it. I'd read it, consider it, and then read responses to it, taking them into consideration. If what you said made more sense than what the opposition was saying, I'd probably end up coming away from that discussion thinking "that guy knew his shit". But you don't know your shit. Your just full of shit.

I'm also not even a communist. So, that sort of takes the wind out of your "brainwashed zealot" argument too. I'm a capitalist. I like making money. I like using that money to gain societal advantages. A communist society would take that away from me. Maybe if I had nothing to lose, I'd be some sort of revolutionary, but I don't, so I'm not. I just think intellectual dishonesty is repugnant, and get a kick out of calling it out.

Maybe you should try reading Das Kapital and come back. We might be able to have a productive conversation then.

>> No.7035191

>>7035152
It was a joke, dipshit.

moot doesn't profit off of it and the mod/janitor system is more or less a "state". It's certainly a power structure. Not sure either communism or stateless capitalism is an apt description for this place. Maybe toilet or septic tank.

>> No.7035192

>>7034776
lolwut? How many goddamn voices did you grow up hearing, 3?

>> No.7035216

>>7035178
The democratic political process at the core of communism is what I'm referring to as a state. You might call it "society", but that's just word games. If my neighbors vote to confiscate the product of my labor, they are effectally the state.

If rival society pracitices different property norms would be suppressed by the communist collective, then its a state. Statless capitalism would allow communist collective, while communism wouldn't allow stateless capitalist coserns. Thus the former is stateless and the latter is statist.

Stateless capitalism would be devoid of politics and related structures (ie corporations). Corporations are socialists entities, they are worker's collectives that anyone with the money can buy into. Most likely statless capitalism would be devoid of violence too, violence is bad for business. My premise is simply that only individuals can make property, thus only individuals should decide how that property is used. And any regulation of individuals, or interactions in butween individuals, is statist. A worker builds a house, and they put it up on the market to rent it to someone. The entity saying that that's explotation, and stops that transaction, would be the state. There are no power structures in stateless capitalism, any power would be the individual over their own life.

marx and Engles both claimed marxism was scientific. At this point it seems you're the one that has never studied marxism... And yes, of course I don't think politics is scientific. Politics is about as irrational as anything can get!

The secondary sources I was referring to were marxist readers, survays, etc, stuffed biased towards marxism being correct....

Ok than, what's some valid critism of marxism you've come across?

>> No.7035224

>>7035185
I could take "legal" out and that definition would be no less valid. Property still exists, private or other wise, the communist collective would violently protect its property. And suppress other property norms. Thus it would be statist.

Your identity doesn't matter. If anything you are, keeping to your overtly strict followings of marxism, a liberal.

I've read most everything else by marx and Engels. I know all the arguments and conclusions in capital. I also know all the arguments and conclusions in the Bible. My reading of those texts has no effects on the validity of those arguments. The conflict here is in the definition of the state. I say a state is an entity that enforces a property norm, which communism 100% most certainly would.

>> No.7035252

>>7035216
>The democratic political process at the core of communism is what I'm referring to as a state. You might call it "society", but that's just word games.
It's not word games though. Society isn't the state. They're different entities. If you had any grounding in social theory, you'd known this. Again, you're inserting your own definition of the state and claiming it's the Marxist definition of the state. If you're going to criticize Marxism for being circular, it's probably best if you don't engage in it yourself.

>If my neighbors vote to confiscate the product of my labor, they are effectally the state.
How may times do I have to explain this? You can't have confiscated what isn't solely yours. The product of your labor, as well as everyone else's is held in common. The way your logic works, this "confiscation" is the same as taking something out of one pocket and putting it into another and saying your left hand stole from your right.

>f rival society pracitices different property norms would be suppressed by the communist collective
Again, you have a flawed conception of what Marxist communism would look like. There wouldn't be a rival society. There would be a global collective and individualists living outside of society. Individuals would never be in a position to constitute a threat to a global society. There would be no state. Why do I have to keep explaining the same things over and over and over again to you?

>> No.7035255

>>7035216
>Stateless capitalism would be devoid of politics and related structures
Such a reality is inherently contradictory. Capitalism requires the accumulation and acquisition of capital. This creates hierarchy (differences in levels of capital), and power structures (with those with the most capital on top). Your premise sounds cute, but isn't based on any reality or even realistic theoretical construct. It's a delusion. It's even more delusional than communism. Let's look at your example to find out why:

A worker builds a house and rents it out. But because he wanted to maximize profit like a rational homo economis, he cut corners. There were no regulations, so no one stopped him. The house collapses and the renter dies. However, that renter had a family that made arms. So now you have arms dealers gunning for the house maker. He needs to protect himself. So he takes his capital and hires guards. But he needs to keep the capital flowing, so he keeps building houses and killing people and hiring guards, all of a sudden you have an oppressive power structure.

Your idea that there would be no politics is even more laughable. Politics exist in society even without a state. Politics aren't just parliment and presidents and shit. It's how people interact to get things they want. All societies, from anarchist to authoritarian have politics.

>Ok than, what's some valid critism of marxism you've come across?
"than", hey maybe work on your English language skills. Than is a comparator.

The most valid criticism for me personally, is I like having social advantages over poor people. But that's not valid beyond me personally. However, if you like having social advantages over poor people too, feel free to apply that to yourself.


But seriously, you might enjoy reading some Nozick.

Now go away. You're an idiot. I'm sick of your bullshit. Go read a book. If you just want to feel like you've won some sort of internet dickwaving contest, feel free to declare victory, because I'm sick of your uninformed ass. I'm not your tutor. I've given you far more of a response than you deserve.

>> No.7035266

>>7035252
The political process at the core of communism that directs the use of capital goods is the state.

Please tell me what definition of the state you would like me to use and I'll explain how communism fits that definition.

If others have ownership over the product of my labor, I don't own it. And in a relative way I don't have control over my body either. Only individuals create property. Its physically impossible for collectives to do anything, they are abstractions. Property being held in common is the confiscation of the product of an individuals labor.

Just because I didn't explicitly include that doesn't mean I don't understand it, or made my statements without that in mind. I know communism says it has to be everywhere. That was my point. If free individuals banded together and choose to practice their own property norms, the communism society/state would violently suppress them. communism is one world government.

So where is that valid criticism of marxism? Are you still looking? Or are you ready to admit you're a brainwashed religion zealot?

>> No.7035270

My special brand of Marxism™ ( The Special Definition ®, as made by an inquirious anon, through the study of the /lit/ approved channels ) doesn't apply to the Marxism ( this one isn't trademarked, as it isn't the definition that I am following, for it purports itself to rest upon the great theoretical post-structuralist pre-Socratic anti-Indo-European pro Finno-Ugric self-referentiality ), as it was defined by an another form of Runestone painting professional connoiser of cheap wines, thereby, I believe that our collective conscious should reflect upon the repressive forces of our own kindling, as if ( NOTICE THE IF, THERE MIGHT BE MORE TO IT, WHO KNOWS, THIS MIGHT BE A REFERENCE ) there was self-evident truth to it, although there can be none, seeing that my theses on this great philospher, which I will not call by name, for it is quite useless to you, unread fellow, and yes, where was I? Ah, muh working class.

>> No.7035278

>>7035224
>"legal" out and that definition would be no less valid.
Actually it wouldn't because that also necessitates the omission of "monopoly". When the property norm is society itself and not a separate or sectertian state enforced norm through the threat of violence, the definition as you put it is useless to describe a communist society.

Everything else you mention in this post is just wankery about how informed you supposedly are. The problem with this assertion is that your words contradict it. You come across as an uninformed child. I doubt you've read anything besides The Communist Manifesto and threads about "cultural marxism" on /pol/. If you have read beyond that, you read without comprehension, because your articulations reveal an embarrassing level of ignorance.

>I say a state is an entity that enforces a property norm
Great, this argument was about what the Marxist conception of a state is, not yours. Also, by your definition, an anarcho-capitalist society would be a state as well, since it is a enforcing a private property norm (and almost certainly would necessitate that the enforcement uses violent means).

>> No.7035285

>>7035266
>The political process at the core of communism that directs the use of capital goods is the state.
Only by your special unrecognized version of what the "state" is.

>Please tell me what definition of the state you would like me to use and I'll explain how communism fits that definition.
I already have.

>If others have ownership over the product of my labor, I don't own it.
You do. You don't have private ownership of it. All ownership is held in common.

>I know communism says it has to be everywhere. That was my point. If free individuals banded together and choose to practice their own property norms, the communism society/state would violently suppress them. communism is one world government.
Except it isn't a government. But to understand how that would be possible, I'd have to explain Hegelian and material dialectics to you, which would I have neither the time nor patience for.

>So where is that valid criticism of marxism? Are you still looking? Or are you ready to admit you're a brainwashed religion zealot?
Please fuck off you petulant child. There is clearly a brainwashed zealot here. And it ain't me.

>> No.7035299

>>7035255
The farmer has no more power over the doctor as the doctor has over the builder. Capital and people are not homogeneous. Thus capitalism doesn't "require" acquisition of capital, doesn't create hierarchies or power structures.

Markets regulate themselves. There is no part of the market without competition. Good builders that don't cut corners have an interest in pointing out bad builders. Slums lords couldn't exist, because there will always be better businesses that work harder to get money in more productive ways. Violence is risky, no one would want to be in the business of guarding bad people, because they would know there are always more good people than bad. Besides, the cost of those guards would hurt the bottom line, construction companies without that expensive would win out. Even in a more practical sense, defense always beats offense. Governments can afford armies for several reasons, it can tax, it can print money, etc, all things private business can not.

Politics would be replaced with market interactions. To get something it has to be paid for. While with politics to get stuff you just cry about it till you get a hand out.

Sorry that I'm typing fast and not proofreading something I write on 4chan....

I am a poor person. I don't want to have power over rich or poor people. I don't want to have an advantage over anyone.

I'm a big fan of Nozick. I was having a discussion about the tale of the slave just earlier today. You know Nozick is all for stateless capitalism, right?

>I'm not your tutor.
>Its not my job to educate you shitlord.

If you want to take a position, be prepared to defend that position, or do not take it in the first place.

>> No.7035304

>>7035299
>Good builders that don't cut corners have an interest in pointing out bad builders. Slums lords couldn't exist, because there will always be better businesses that work harder to get money in more productive ways. Violence is risky, no one would want to be in the business of guarding bad people, because they would know there are always more good people than bad. Besides, the cost of those guards would hurt the bottom line
>Politics would be replaced with market interactions

Yeah the Soviets and Chinese sure did follow through with that

>> No.7035306

>>7035278
Please do tell what definition of the state I should use, and I'll explain how the communism is a state by that definition.

Stateless capitalism doesn't enforce a property. It enforces not being able to enforce a property norm. communism is perfectly acceptable in the stateless capitalist society.

>> No.7035325

>>7035285
You've said the state exists to enforce private property rights, and I retorted that public property is just the private property of the state. That state being in the context of communism the political process that directs capital goods. Do you really not see how that are both the same. The state, as you define it, is a political process that directs capital goods, right? RIGHT?

No, individuals don't have ownership of the product of their labor if its held in common. The majority owns it. My rights are controlled by the majority, not me.

To quote the idiot himself: "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production." That's what the fuck I'm talking about. The political process that controls capital goods. That's the government. THAT IS A GOVERNMENT.

Where is that valid criticism of marxism? If you can come up with something I would be impressed. Till then you're a brainwashed religion zealot.

>> No.7035327

>>7035304
What is your point?

>> No.7035339
File: 209 KB, 682x600, 1363342346244.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7035339

>>7034434
That's what he looks like? No wonder he never shows himself on camera.

>> No.7035346

>>7035299
>The farmer has no more power over the doctor as the doctor has over the builder. Capital and people are not homogeneous. Thus capitalism doesn't "require" acquisition of capital, doesn't create hierarchies or power structures.
Capital would be unevenly distributed. This indeed does imply hierarchy. Once a hierarchy is in place it follows that power structures would be set up to maintain the status quo.

>Markets regulate themselves.
They do not. Nothing about the history of market capitalism suggests this. Even Adam Smith favored regulation of markets. He merely opposed nationalistic protectionism. That's what the "invisible hand" refers to.

As to the rest of your argument, I'd argue that humans aren't actually the rational actors that Englightenment thinks believed them to be. People do risky things all the time to increase profits. People are terrible at judging risk and reward calculations. Saying "it isn't rational" flies in the face of the reality of human psychology. I've hesitated to bring up the whole "human nature" argument as I assumed you'd just say something along the lines of "lol communism is against human nature people are greedy lol" or something. And I don't want to get drawn into that side argument. Suffice to say that neither really "gets" human nature, but humans are first and foremost adaptive. But what are we better suited to adapting to? A society where mutual atruism is the rule or one where they're forced to be calculating and rational? We've been pushing for rationalism for centuries and people remain as irrational and willing to engage in risky or anti-social behavior as ever. So maybe neither would work, but we at least have evidence that market rationality doesn't work, so we can say with authority that any "stateless capitalism" is working with a flawed concept of our own psychology. It's a shame John Locke didn't know neuroscience I guess.

>Politics would be replaced with market interactions.
They would not. Market interactions aren't separate from human interactions. Humans interacting is what makes the markets function. Markets are propelled by politics. Economics and politics are inseparable. We've known this for centuries.

>I am a poor person. I don't want to have power over rich or poor people. I don't want to have an advantage over anyone.
Better rethink your commitment to capitalism then.

>You know Nozick is all for stateless capitalism, right?
No shit, that's why I recommended him. I figured you'd enjoy being his sycophant. You'll also find that he advocates for a "redistribution" of wealth to set up his stateless capitalist society, where any wealth acquired by coercion is illegitimately acquired and up for redistributing)

>If you want to take a position, be prepared to defend that position, or do not take it in the first place.
My words to you, essentially. My original position was on the definition of the "state" as conceived by Marx. I think I've proved that point.

>> No.7035350

>>7035306
>Please do tell what definition of the state I should use, and I'll explain how the communism is a state by that definition.
I already did. Learn to read, or if you're capable of that, learn to remember.

> It enforces not being able to enforce a property norm.
Private property is a property norm.

>communism is perfectly acceptable in the stateless capitalist society.
It's not as capitalists could simply claim property held in common as their own. This may be the dumbest thing you've said yet.

>> No.7035368

>>7035325
> I retorted that public property is just the private property of the state
And I retorted that assumes that society is the state, when they're two different entities. You ignored that.

> individuals don't have ownership of the product of their labor if its held in common. The majority owns it.
You are part of that majority. You have a right to common property as a member of society. You seem to think that society is the state, and you are separate from society. In reality, you are always a part of society unless you live in isolation. You are always separate from the state unless you're an actor of the state. You're conflating the two again. I can see why though, since your entire argument collapses unless you work with that conflation. They're two different things. If you can't accept that, fine, but you're operating with definitions that literally no one else uses except for you.

>Where is that valid criticism of marxism?
I referred you to Nozick. You seem to be conveniently ignoring that as well. To be honest, too often criticism of Marxism isn't valid, because most people are arguing from positions of ignorance, much like you are. Again, I do see a brainwashed zealot in this thread. But it isn't me. I have no personal horse in this race I'm betting on. I'm betting on neoliberalism to keep me comfortable while it drives us headlong into extinction. Despite what extremists on the right will tell you, neoliberalism is quite removed ideologically from Marxist communism or for that matter anarchy.

>> No.7035383

>>7035346
No it doesn't. Again, the farmer has no more power over the doctor as the doctor has over the builder.

The state's legal monopoly prevents self regulation through slander laws, copy rights, etc. The state has monopolized quality control.

Irrationality or human nature have irreverent. Technology will be able to by pass all that. Only trade with people on your level.

Politics and economics are only interwoven because since the beginning of human history state's have had control over markets. Once the state is gone politics will have no more power.

Capitalism bring down prices and increases quality, opens up more and easier jobs for the low skilled, increases wages and opportunities for the higher skilled. Capitalism if anything just makes it so rich people can lose everything they have more easily.

I support voluntary redistribution, well I support anything voluntary. I speculate that stateless capitalism will have some basic income system, if anything just as a cheaper way of paying for security.

I've been defending my position quite well actually.

>> No.7035389

>>7035350
I say what the definition of the state would apply to communism here: >>7035325

Yes, private property is one of the property norms that stateless capitalism would not enforce.

There is no confiscation of any sort in stateless capitalism. The origin of property is in labor, if you make something you keep it no matter what property norm you might want to apply to it.

>> No.7035409

>>7035368
I didn't ignore it, I said that it was just word games. And that the political process that controls capital goods is the government.

Seeing as you bring up Novick, think about the tale of the slave. Democracy is majority rule, and because each individual is always a minority, in reality under communism no individual owns anything. No one, I wouldn't be part of that society, and no my argument is based around conflating the state and society. I'm discussing democracy, how are you not getting that?

Its not my fault you' seem like two totally different people. I'm responding to two different threads, no three, I don't know how many people are talking to me. Do you not know how 4chan works? Fyi, I hate neoliberalism, marxism, and socialism equally, all of that can fuck off and die.

>> No.7035419

>>7035383
>No it doesn't. Again, the farmer has no more power over the doctor as the doctor has over the builder.
Your assertion of this has no bearing in reality. If nothing else, differences in demand will create differences in power.

>The state has monopolized quality control.
Also realize that any time market regulations has been light, the response hasn't been to self-regulate responsibly, but to cut corners. Consider the meat industry in the early 1900s. State quality control has been more beneficial for society than market quality control.

>Irrationality or human nature have irreverent. Technology will be able to by pass all that.
Pipe-dreams

>Politics and economics are only interwoven because since the beginning of human history state's have had control over markets.
What is an material exchange at its most basic level? A social interaction. See Mauss for a detailed explanation of this.

>Capitalism bring down prices and increases quality
Only when properly regulated to prevent monopolies and anti-social cost cutting measures. When regulations aren't in place, competition is stomped out and then all bets are off. Again, this is the historical reality of any market give free reign. When unregulated by state forces, they have never self-regulated. While there has never been pure free markets in existence, there have been sectors with minimal regulation. The results haven't been encouraging for your position. But lets ignore history if it gets in the way of ideology. Nothing zealous about that.

>I support voluntary redistribution,
Nozick was suggesting something a bit more "marxist" for lack of a better definition. Illegitimately acquire capital included capital gained off slave labor, capital gained off the capital gained off slave labor, capital gained through exploitation, capital gained through extractive colonialism, etc. You're talking about charities.

>I speculate that stateless capitalism will have some basic income system
I speculate that Jesus will come back and bring us to heaven. Oh shit, our speculations mean fuck all!

>I've been defending my position quite well actually.
Such delusions.

>he definition of the state would apply to communism
It isn't about YOUR definition. YOUR definition is flawed as it fails to distinguish between state and society. We've been over this. What was that about you defending your position well? Do you think ignoring points and saying the same thing over and over until the other person gives up in exasperation is "well"?

>private property is one of the property norms that stateless capitalism would not enforce.
A society with private property requires a system in place to secure that private property, otherwise there is nothing to stop unscrupulous types from simply seizing property they want (but who would do that lol? Anyone with the means and desire, see any raiding party in history). You can argue no one would ever steal, but this is delusion. It's a pipe dream.

>> No.7035435

>>7035409
>I said that it was just word games
It is not.

>political process that controls capital goods is the government.
Only when that political process is a separate entity from society as a whole. It's an important distinction, and if you can understand that, you have a lot to learn. Society is literally everyone. The state is the government. It's a separate class. If we work with your definition of the state, than any group in a "stateless" capitalistic society that has the means could be come the state, destroying the "stateless" capitalistic society as soon as it is created. Not that it could ever be created in the first place.

>Democracy is majority rule
So is "free market" capitalism. Except instead of an equal voting system, you voting with your capital.

>I'm discussing democracy, how are you not getting that?
Because democracy is involved in your system too, so I figured I'd let you have that one. Now I won't since you're pushing it.

>Its not my fault you' seem like two totally different people.
It's not my fault you can't conceive a person arguing for a position they don't buy into personally. But I guess you, being a brainwashed zealot, assume all others are equally brainwashed and zealous in their ideological reasoning.

>. I'm responding to two different threads, no three
Well maybe you should focus on quality over quantity.

>Do you not know how 4chan works?
No please explain it to me. It's my first day here.

> Fyi, I hate neoliberalism, marxism, and socialism equally, all of that can fuck off and die.
Truly the words of a rational person who isn't zealous about their ideological position. Yes, you're the paragon of measured pragmatism. You're not an ideological stooge in anyway. But then, I should have known you were a twit when you admitted to being too emotional to even read more than a single chapter of Das Kapital.

Pathetic.

>> No.7035456
File: 62 KB, 727x639, 1439288637112.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7035456

>Self-acclaimed libertarians who schlick themselves to Dandy Randy come to the troubling realization they actually want Market Socialism but those words are icky together: And other thrilling tales.

Did I misclick on the Hypersphere thread or something?

>> No.7036032

>>7035456
That's self-proclaimed u dipshit

>> No.7036074

>>7036032
>u
>not "you"
Not even the anon that your replied to, but you clearly knew what he meant in his post even with the misuse of words.

>> No.7036085

cuck

>> No.7036111

>>7035185
fuckin rekt im

>> No.7036151
File: 1.50 MB, 1166x693, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7036151

>>7034705
please do

>> No.7036934

>>7035327
The fucking system of communism sucks. There will be no miracle government model for the world.

>> No.7037036
File: 905 KB, 2560x1536, Russell-Brand-017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7037036

Bringing this thread back on OP's topic

>> No.7037174
File: 6 KB, 172x203, Scruton (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7037174

Can sometimes waffle but is certainly the finest conservative thinker in the UK at the moment

>> No.7037203

>>7037036
Really? Hes a narcissistic drug addict out for attention. Using big words doesnt make you an intellectual.

>> No.7037210

>>7034578
I agrre tbh though they're not the only ones

>> No.7037228

>>7037203
Hes smarter than you. Go ahead and debunk some of the ideas in his book if you think he is dumb.

You're just a typical /lit/ contrarian who hates him because he's popular and gaining traction as a political commentator and analyst.

>> No.7037233

>>7037036
nice b8

>> No.7037238
File: 8 KB, 225x225, amazingatheist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7037238

>> No.7037243

>>7035036
The point isn't your disagreement.
Is the fact that you throw around words whose meaning you don't know. For starters, there simply isn't a way to conflate "liberal" and "statist", not in the actual sense, not in the american sense.

Also, Marxism is anti-state as well.

>> No.7037259
File: 119 KB, 650x650, Zizek maymay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7037259

Zizek is probably going to go down as the greatest leftist thinker of our time for better or worse. I see this only because Chomsky is going to kick the bucket soon and Zizek will outlive him enough to set the road for future left philosophers. All leftists will be left with is postmodernism, but at-least Zizek's system rejects a majority of the "hug-box" bullshit that has been popular lately.

>> No.7037686

>>7037238
>>7037036
easily the two smartest people ITT

>> No.7037789

>>7035067
Hurt So good.

C'mon baby . . . Make it Hurt So good

Sometimes love don't feel like it should.

Hurt so good.