>treasonous goblins demanding enclosure
>the murder of Strafford
>closing theatres because Shakespeare is naughty
Roundheads are the worst
Remember, Oliver Cromwell did nothing wrong :^)
>>1236062
If you're a moral nihilist, maybe
>>1236052
>tfw the only good side didn't win
>>1237820
They eventually won, unfortunately.
>>1237862
The Levellers did nothing wrong.
Plus their second album was absolutely sick.
>>1237867
>treason
>nothing wrong
>>1237880
Treason against monarchists and insane dictators is nothing short of righteous.
>>1237889
Dammit, do you see loyalty as oppressive?
>>1237893
That depends if you're being loyal to an oppressive regime. I mean North Koreans are pretty fucking loyal but the state is also very oppressive.
"Loyalty" is the biggest meme in history. If you cannot justify continued allegience for any reason other than "muh loyalty" then a state deserves all the revolutions it has coming.
>>1237903
Loyalty alone absolutely counts for something (if it doesn't, then it counts for nothing). and you need something significant to balance against it if you intend to disregard it..
>>1237923
Loyalty towards a government is pointless, especially a monarchy
These systems never show loyalty towards the people they are expected to receive it from, so why would it be given in return?
>>1237932
I'm not sure what you're talking about, the king is bred and raised to administrate, and dedicates a lot of his life to doing that. How is that now showing loyalty?
>>1237942
*not showing
>>1237923
Yes, loyalty does count for nothing. It's literally a meme endorsed by various ruling powers to try (and fail) to bully people into supporting the status quo so that they can remain in power.
Need something to balance against it? Try pragmatic benefit, that actually counts for something. Supporting change or status quo because it would be beneficial to your life and ambitions. Which just so happens to seem remarkably similar to what elites are doing when shilling about loyalty.
Being loyal just for the sake of being loyal is literally football-logic applied to politics.
>>1237942
Charles I dedicated more of his life to scratching his arse and posing for paintings than he did expending any effort into actually ruling for the good of anyone.
>>1237945
>Yes, loyalty does count for nothing.
>Try pragmatic benefit
See, now we're at an impasse regarding values. Imagine if you applied this logic to a marriage.
>>1237953
That's not only incorrect, it's not even funny hyperbole.
>>1237954
You should. If your marriage is not mutually beneficial then it is shitty marriage.
Do mind that I'm not talking just about material benefit, this also can apply to the more idealistic aspects of personal living. Just as an absence of emotional investment will mark a bad marriage, an absence of ideological investment in continued loyalty marks a state not being worth loyal to.
Case in point, there is a massive conflict between the Islam and imperialism of the Ottoman Empire and the Christianity and nationalism of the Greeks. On the count that they have no material or ideological investment in the status quo it is only righteous that the Greeks rebelled against the Ottomans.
>>1237957
It's true, the revolution happened for a good reason. He was an terrible ruler.
>>1237862
>eventually won
For a short while but then they lost again and that's when everything was going to shit once again.
>>1237979
There has to a be an awful lot to forego a loyalty as foundational and lasting as a monarch. It is a very serious thing and nothing to be taken lightly, and "lack of emotional fulfillment" clearly wouldn't cut it here, because we're talking about a loyalty that lasts many, many generations.
The Greeks rebelled against the Ottomans because of loyalty to God, pretty much the only loyalty higher than loyalty to the monarch.
>>1237984
http://www.bilderberg.org/land/tenure.htm
>>1238002
Yes, monarchs should be taken lightly because it's a stupid form of government. Much more so back then when monarchs held formidable amounts of power, but responsibility was optional.
A lack of ideological investment is a very valid reason to rebel against a system of government. Just as the Greeks weren't invested in Islam, the Levellers weren't invested in monarchy. Because fundamentally religion is not that much different from modern ideology, where with the advent of revolutions like this it is appreciated that power may come from the people upwards rather than from god downwards.
But equally you leave out that I suggest ideological and material investment should be paid equal consideration. Just as if you have ideological grievances with a state making loyalty seem less appealing, it is also true that if a state has you at a material disadvantage loyalty is no longer appealing. If a state neither respects your ideological considerations, or has you living in acceptable material conditions it is simply not worth being loyal to.
The marriage analogy is very apt here. If a marriage does not leave you with any emotional fulfillment, or material benefit then it is simply a pointless marriage.
>>1237820
>tfw the only good side didn't win
>>1237923
Loyalty has to be earned.
>>1238033
Religion is very different, because it centers around a being. Just like monarchism does. Just like marriage does. Monotheism, monarchism, monogamy,all pillars of loyalty. Loyalty is about being devoted to something with subjectivity, as opposed to being devoted to an object; being devoted to an ideology is like being devoted to a car.
The English Civil War hardly benefited the people. It brought about the rapid acceleration of enclosure, forced peasants off their land, and paved the way for mass poverty in urbanization and the latter worker lifestyle of the industrial revolution.
>If a marriage does not leave you with any emotional fulfillment, or material benefit then it is simply a pointless marriage.
No, this is a narcissistic philosophy. If you are not emotionally fulfilled in a marriage, the proper thing to do is to try to make the marriage work better and try to be more loving to your spouse, not to dissolve the marriage. If bonds of loyalty can switched on and off like lights, then loyalty is nonexistent. And without loyalty, there can't be trust, and without trust, society could not possibly function.
>>1236052
No gods no kings no slaves you royalist bootlicker.
>>1238052
He does earn it be administrating the kingdom
>I would rather choose to wear a crown of thorns with my Saviour, than to exchange that of gold, which is due to me, for one of lead, whose embased flexibleness shall be forced to bend and comply to the various and oft contrary dictates of any factions, when instead of reason and public concernments they obtrude nothing but what makes for the interest of parties, and flows from the partialities of private wills and passions. I know no resolutions more worthy a Christian king, than to prefer his conscience before his kingdoms.
And to administrate the kingdom is his right
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."--Romans 13:1-2
>>1238069
Just mediocrity.
>>1238068
On the contrary being devoted to a single object is more akin to being devoted to a car. Ideologies of the modern era appeal more so to lofty ideals of egalitarianism, or freedom or romantic nationhood or some such. You do not find yourself being devoted to a thing but so much to an idea. However more dated ideologies like monarchism, political religion and such also appeal to ideas, it's just that the ultimate realization of those ideas lies in an individual thing.
I do however agree that the immediate result of the English civil war was bad, it's inescapable that Cromwell was a bad guy. However I do strongly agree with the ideas of the Levellers in opposition to both this and the cavalier monarchism. Additionally the introduction of capitalism to Britain was inevitable, not just inevitable but also ultimately a good thing as we can see today.
>No, this is a narcissistic philosophy. If you are not emotionally fulfilled in a marriage, the proper thing to do is to try to make the marriage work better and try to be more loving to your spouse, not to dissolve the marriage.
Sometimes a marriage simply cannot work, if there is no emotional or material investment to one or both parties then it is simply a marriage that should never have been. You cannot will emotions into existence anymore than through your own effort can you change another person.
> If bonds of loyalty can switched on and off like lights, then loyalty is nonexistent. And without loyalty, there can't be trust,
Yes, loyalty is non-existent. Loyalty is something that (like trust) must be earned through mutual fulfillment and respect.
Loyalty is nothing simply thrust upon you by being born in a certain state or recognized as married, it is something that's cultivated and nurtured through the effort of both parties. And by living in a state you feel no compulsion to be loyal to, or being in a marriage that you have no investment in it is only right to end it.
>>1238085
Saying
>But then it'll be mediocre
Is an appeal to ego of the highest order.
>>1238068
>Just like marriage does.
No, marriage does not revolve around your partner. Marriage is about the union of two people who show loyalty and devotion to each other, whereas (absolute) monarchy is about a despot demanding exploitative tribute.
>>1237820
Winstanley is mah boi.
>>1238112
The idea is an "object" though, not a "subject". It's something you objectify. Ideologies are the toys of people devoted to them, they can modify them like lego blocks.
>However I do strongly agree with the ideas of the Levellers in opposition to both this and the cavalier monarchism.
Why? They supported right to enclosure.
>Additionally the introduction of capitalism to Britain was inevitable, not just inevitable but also ultimately a good thing as we can see today.
No, Britain would have been better if the land remained mostly common. Enclosure caused greater food shortages and did nothing to help anyone except allow the big landowners to squeeze out the little guy
>if there is no emotional or material investment to one or both parties
Not a comparable situation since there was investment here, and certainly not acceptable when there is a family involved.
>Loyalty is nothing simply thrust upon you
Yeah, in that case it is called "duty". Like, for instance, paying your taxes. You don't have to live in the country or gain any benefits, but you still have to pay your taxes.
>>1238124
No, it's an appeal to believe that some people are the cream of the crop, and we should look up to those people and see them as our betters, instead of resenting them for their superiority.
>>1238207
Ideas centred around a single thing like monarchism, and monotheism fundamentally focus on an object. As they are the object of loyalty.
Ideas centred around more populist rhetoric do not focus on a single thing that can be quantified. It is the pinnacle of lofty ideals as the realization of their idea is just as intangible as the idea itself.
>Why? They supported right to enclosure.
Because I like democracy and equal rights, but I also like religious freedom so I'm not too fussed on the diggers.
>No, Britain would have been better if the land remained mostly common. Enclosure caused greater food shortages and did nothing to help anyone except allow the big landowners to squeeze out the little guy
It wouldn't, the lifestyle we have right now is owed to the capitalist mode of production. It is the necessary end to feudalism just as a return to common ownership with socialism is the necessary end to capitalism.
>Not a comparable situation since there was investment here, and certainly not acceptable when there is a family involved.
1. I'm not sure what you mean "since there was investment here".
2. I agree, family is emotional investment in itself and a perfectly valid reason to remain in an otherwise bad marriage.
>Yeah, in that case it is called "duty". Like, for instance, paying your taxes. You don't have to live in the country or gain any benefits, but you still have to pay your taxes.
Duty isn't exactly a good thing either.
>>1238211
>Kings, slavemasters and so forth are our betters and we should look up to them.
>>1238247
>Ideas centred around a single thing like monarchism, and monotheism fundamentally focus on an object. As they are the object of loyalty.
An object with subjectivity, a being who acts and has agency and whose heart is a mystery. Not an object in the sense of "what is merely acted upon", but an actor.
>Because I like democracy and equal rights
Do you like these as ideas in themselves, or for their utility?
>It wouldn't, the lifestyle we have right now is owed to the capitalist mode of production. It is the necessary end to feudalism just as a return to common ownership with socialism is the necessary end to capitalism.
This is all enlightenment philosophy which presupposes a a steady progress, and is unable to comprehend fluctuations of for or away from the good, but must justify all that has transpired as progress toward the good. It makes no sense to say chopping up the land was more beneficial than keeping it common. How is it beneficial? How did it improve things? Do you think for a moment that technology would not have advanced otherwise? Do you think patronizing invention wouldn't have occurred without capitalism? Marx, liberalism, the enlightenment, all very foolish when you think for a moment about how absurd the idea is of revolving one's entire philosophy around "current year".
>1. I'm not sure what you mean "since there was investment here".
I mean the king was absolutely invested in his subjects and did give considerable thought to why it was better for than for him to be king, than for there to be parliamentary rule. He wasn't a spoiled brat, he was a deeply religious, responsible and thoughtful individual who had the foresight of the country's long term interests at heart, and saw a bunch of petty factions squabbling with each other for personal gains.
>2. I agree, family is emotional investment in itself and a perfectly valid reason to remain in an otherwise bad marriage.
And we're not talking of mere family, we're talking about a nation
>>1238080
God isn't real.
Fucking tripfag tranny
![bwjftcz5ingfji28la3h[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Jgy3qz5.jpg "bwjftcz5ingfji28la3h[1].jpg")
>>1238316
>kings are your betters
>>1238316
You're quite the cuck aren't you?
>>1238404
I don't understand, are you suggesting the monarch is "cheating" by being secretly king of another country or something? Because otherwise, loyalty and devotion are not cuckoldry, they're the exact opposite.
>>1238305
>An object with subjectivity, a being who acts and has agency and whose heart is a mystery. Not an object in the sense of "what is merely acted upon", but an actor.
There is nothing subjective about god or kings.
>Do you like these as ideas in themselves, or for their utility?
On the count that I am an ethnic minority at a relative economic disadvantage I have a natural vested interest in equal rights. Democracy however is something I would uphold as a good idea in itself, as it is the means by which legitimacy is earned through consent rather being simply entrusted to an individual.
>This is all enlightenment philosophy which presupposes a a steady progress, and is unable to comprehend fluctuations of for or away from the good, but must justify all that has transpired as progress toward the good
The thing is the advance towards socialism, or capitalism, or even feudalism is not inherently good for all. It's good for the second to most powerful class of society as they gain power, however it is terrible for the present elite class as they are annihilated in the change of power. Just as Roman patricians fell to make way for kings, then kings fell to make way for the bourgeoisie, the progress of history in this way is not an absolute good but rather one class losing power and becoming oppressed in favour of their once subordinates.
How is it beneficial?
Now rulership is earned with popular consent, economic upward mobility has soard to unprecedented levels because now basically every profession has been made available to people with the right qualifications and experience.
1/2
>>1238316
>Kings are you betters, in probably every conceivable way you measure human quality, if you do at all.
kek Constantine you're such a faggot
>>1238427
Do I think invention wouldn't have occured without capitalism?
No, not on this level anyway. The absurd amounts of wealth capitalism allows to be accumulated allows for patronage on a scale totally alien to that of noble patrons centries ago. The resources exist to fund art, discovery and innovation to absolutely unheard of levels thanks to the economic mode of capitalist urbanization and industrialism. Not to mention these factors themselves often become the incentives of innovation with cities and industrial production demanding more efficient ways to live and work.
Even in the days of feudalism we can see this with trade-oriented merchant republics absolutely exploding with art and science because there was simply so much money.
>current year
It's not based on le current year memes. It's based on an a posteriori analysis of historical trends which overwhelmingly suggests this kind progress is very real because advances in technology make it necessary.
>give considerable thought to why it was better for than for him to be king
And I'm sure Kim Jong Un has given considerable thought as to why he deserves to rule North Korea and the USA is the devil.
But the thing is good rulers do not come from privilege, every remarkable ruler either came from the most unlikely of backgrounds or faced considerable adversity in their claim to power which moulded them into virtuous individuals. This kind of osmosis is what makes them great. Whereas kings are a forced imitation of this greatness, where virtue rather than being something that must be gained naturally from hardship becomes something that can be synthetically trained and instilled into the descendents of truly great individuals.
>we're not talking of mere family, we're talking about a nation
There is nothing mere about family, nationhood pales in comparison to the loyalty that is owed to your children and that which is cultivated with your siblings and elders.
But I'm not sure what your argument is.
>>1238316
>Why not? Duty is loyalty that is beyond whim. Without duty, "loyalty" is all the same sort of loyalty you have to a brand.
Because it's just a romantic way of saying you're forced to do something on pain of going to prison or possibly death.
There's nothing nice about "duty".
>Kings are you betters, in probably every conceivable way you measure human quality, if you do at all.
No they aren't, and they aren't because I say so.
If you want to kow-tow and grovel that bad then I suppose they are indeed /your/ betters.
>>1238427
>There is nothing subjective about god or kings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
>On the count that I am an ethnic minority at a relative economic disadvantage I have a natural vested interest in equal rights. Democracy however is something I would uphold as a good idea in itself, as it is the means by which legitimacy is earned through consent rather being simply entrusted to an individual.
What actual benefits do you see from the Levelers having these?
>. It's good for the second to most powerful class of society as they gain power, however it is terrible for the present elite class
Or the people at the bottom. Furthermore the number of classes have multiplied today, they haven't shrunk. There are countless shades.
>Now rulership is earned with popular consent,
No, it's vetted through money and connections, and then becomes a source of what is becoming popular entertainment à la American Idol.
>economic upward mobility has soard to unprecedented levels because now basically every profession has been made available to people with the right qualifications and experience.
That's because of a multiplication of the number of technical skills and subsequent greater array of demand. All of those could easily have happened without parceling out the common land.
>The absurd amounts of wealth capitalism allows to be accumulated allows for patronage on a scale totally alien to that of noble patrons centries ago.
Capitalism doesn't allow for any higher production of wealth, you think industrialization wouldn't have been heavily invested in without capitalism? And you think it wouldn't have created considerable wealth regardless of capitalism?
>Even in the days of feudalism we can see this with trade-oriented merchant republics absolutely exploding with art and science because there was simply so much money.
You don't need capitalism for trade, you just need large surplus.
>>1238432
>It's based on an a posteriori analysis of historical trends which overwhelmingly suggests this kind progress is very real because advances in technology make it necessary.
Why does technology make capitalism necessary? Furthermore, how is capitalist technology breakthrough (better advertising, more addictive artificial flavors) helping progress? You can say, "well, some technology is." Okay, well do you admit there can also be technology with *hampers* progress as it becomes more advanced?
>And I'm sure Kim Jong Un has given considerable thought as to why he deserves to rule North Korea and the USA is the devil.
Mm, no. We're talking about very different characters. King Charles, when being put to death, saw it as divine punishment for signed Safford's death warrant (after being pressured by Parliament). Kim Jong Un doesn't think like that, don't compare a populist dictator to a monarch.
>But the thing is good rulers do not come from privilege, every remarkable ruler either came from the most unlikely of backgrounds or faced considerable adversity in their claim to power which moulded them into virtuous individuals
Pretty much all the worst dictators came from unlikely backgrounds.
>There is nothing mere about family, nationhood pales in comparison to the loyalty that is owed to your children and that which is cultivated with your siblings and elders.
A nation is a lot bigger and breaking up its linchpin causes much more upheaval.
>>1238444
>>1238444
>Because it's just a romantic way of saying you're forced to do something on pain of going to prison or possibly death.
No, duty is very frequently a source of immense pride, and something cherished more than anything else in the world. That you trivialize to merely the same as being mugged shows that the conception is difficult for you to grasp.
>>1238493
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
That is not an argument.
>What actual benefits do you see from the Levelers having these?
With democracy I get to vote.
With equal rights I get to not be discriminated against for coming from a Catholic background.
>Or the people at the bottom. Furthermore the number of classes have multiplied today, they haven't shrunk. There are countless shades.
You're right, generally in the waning days of a system of government there comes an alliance between the elites and the underclass both of which have to lose in the transitory period. As seen in the 1800s with the nobility in Britain having a strong alliance with the working class in face of the bourgeois Whigs.
However the number of classes, in material terms at least, has shrunk. As now all that remains in bourgeoisie and proletariat, as internally divided as the proletariat may be.
>No, it's vetted through money and connections,
This is true, democracy as we now know it is basically just the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. However it still legitimizes itself on popular consent which is what I've been saying, legitimacy.
>All of those could easily have happened without parceling out the common land.
No they couldn't have, as privitization is what spurred the industrial revolution thus spurring industrial booms in technology and subsequently technical professions and bourgeoisie demand.
>industrialization wouldn't have been heavily invested in without capitalism?
First I must say industrialization is not caused by capitalism but rather capitalism is caused by industrialization empowering the bourgeoisie. It is simply inevitable for this reason.
Second of all if society somehow managed to stay feudal industrialization for sure would not have happened for that very reason.
>you just need large surplus.
Which is created by the bourgeois manipulation of trade and money in the instance of merchant republics, in opposition to the nobility's agrarian wealth.
>>1238530
>Why does technology make capitalism necessary?
Because industrialization is an outgrowth of technological advancement that massively empowers the urban bourgeoisie over the agrarian nobility thus causing capitalism.
>Furthermore, how is capitalist technology breakthrough (better advertising, more addictive artificial flavors) helping progress?
Because as with further automatization power becomes more and more concentrated in the bourgeoisie leaving the proletariat more and more disenfranchised it is inevitable that either a revolution happens, or the bourgeoisie are forced to make more and more concessions until they are pretty much just a vestigial remnant of past times as the nobility are in Britain now.
> We're talking about very different characters. King Charles, when being put to death, saw it as divine punishment for signed Safford's death warran
Believing in god does not make someone a better person.
>Pretty much all the worst dictators came from unlikely backgrounds.
Of course you as a monarchist think everyone who usurps power coming from relative powerlessness is evil, and people who rule from privilege are great.
It would not surprise me if you rank Napoleon among these "worst dictators".
>A nation is a lot bigger and breaking up its linchpin causes much more upheaval.
It is irrelevant how big it is, it simply less important.
And sometimes breaking up the lynchpin and causing upheaval is a good thing. Especially if a state is so weak that it is tied together by one individual.
>>1238530
>No, duty is very frequently a source of immense pride, and something cherished more than anything else in the world. That you trivialize to merely the same as being mugged shows that the conception is difficult for you to grasp.
Yes, and that pride is nothing but pure ideology.
Otherwise known as a spook.
>>1238544
>That is not an argument.
It's meant to show you that monarchs and God have subjectivity, since you don't seem to understand the breadth of the word.
>With democracy I get to vote.
Considering your ratio to the rest of the populace, this privilege hardly empowers you
>With equal rights I get to not be discriminated against for coming from a Catholic background.
Too bad fighting against the king made that much, much worse, not better.
>However the number of classes, in material terms at least, has shrunk.
No, it hasn't at all, it's multiplied, because the number of roles from owner to worker has become extremely distorted and nuanced, and when you look at things like retirement accounts, most workers are involved in the processes of the appropriation and rely on it.
> However it still legitimizes itself on popular consent which is what I've been saying, legitimacy.
Could you explain what you mean by that word?
>privitization is what spurred the industrial revolution
>rather capitalism is caused by industrialization
These two statements are in conflict
>Which is created by the bourgeois manipulation of trade and money in the instance of merchant republics, in opposition to the nobility's agrarian wealth.
Those are just different forms of capital for different sorts of production. You can just as well say media and shoe factories are different classes because they produce distinct products.
>>1238597
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>>1238583
>Because industrialization is an outgrowth of technological advancement that massively empowers the urban bourgeoisie over the agrarian nobility thus causing capitalism.
You don't need industrialization for capitalism, you just need credit and wage labor. Similarly, you don't need capitalism for industrialization, you just heavy investment in industry.
>
Because as with further automatization power becomes more and more concentrated in the bourgeoisie leaving the proletariat more and more disenfranchised it is inevitable that either a revolution happens, or the bourgeoisie are forced to make more and more concessions until they are pretty much just a vestigial remnant of past times as the nobility are in Britain now.
Or they just introduce negative income tax which keeps most people poor but complacent
>Believing in god does not make someone a better person.
When God is a basis for morals and you see murder as very wrong, it might not make him any better of a person (in your eyes), but it certainly makes him a very different person and not appropriate to compare.
>It would not surprise me if you rank Napoleon among these "worst dictators".
Well, let's see, he brought back slavery when the rest of Europe was moving against it, treated the anti-slavery Pope like garbage though the Pope asked for Napoleon to be treated well by his captors and sheltered his mother. He launched completely pointless invasions of Russia, Spain and Egypt, which Louis wouldn't have dreamed of. He made Fouché, a psychopath, the chief of his secret police, he executed the duc d'Enghien for basically no other reason than teh lulz even though it was bound to permanently ruin his relations with the rest of Europe.
>Especially if a state is so weak that it is tied together by one individual.
That's actually a source of strength. If you have a load of individuals as the nucleus, there can be no devotion, because your loyalty can shift from one to another as they compete
>>1238590
Ideology (I'm presuming you mean it is Zizek's rather than Marx's sense, judging by your use of "pure") is unconscious, spooks are conscious. Significant difference
>>1238597
>It's meant to show you that monarchs and God have subjectivity.
A wikipedia page is not an argument.
I already know what subjectivity means, if your argument is so solid you should be able to explain how it fits to monarchs and god in your view.
> this privilege hardly empowers you
Having a vote of 1, to the thousands living in my constituency is more empowering than having no vote at all and just having to put up with the kings whims.
>much worse, not better.
I know it did, I already said earlier that Cromwell was worse than Charles I. My point is that the Levellers are the actual good guys as opposed to the less-bad guys.
>No, it hasn't at all, it's multiplied, because the number of roles from owner to worker has become extremely distorted and nuanced
But it hasn't, everyone below the owner is simply another part of the proletariat.
The jobs have become more administrative, but this is simply a symptom of the bourgeoisie becoming more powerful as opposed to class becoming more distorted.
>you mean by that word
I mean it in the same sense that monarchists use it. The right to rule.
Whereas bourgeois presidents get their legitimacy from (heavily manipulated) popular consent, kings get their legitimacy from being the descendent of the previous king most in line with the laws of succession (at least in the later stages of feudalism). Or alternatively divine right which is even sillier.
Bourgeois demoracy is a marginal step forward.
>are in conflict
They are not, inclosure happened before industrialization and subsequently modern capitalism become dominant in Britain. And I'm arguing capitalism is a consequence of industrialisation, which is a consequence of inclosure.
>Those are just different forms of capital for different sorts of production.
If you sincerely believe that the bourgeoisie and the nobility are the same class you are dumbass who knows nothing about economics or history.
>>1238657
>spooks are conscious.
>>1238080
>And to administrate the kingdom is his right
Why, though? Why is that his right any more than any other person of the kingdom's?
>>1238207
>
>No, Britain would have been better if the land remained mostly common. Enclosure caused greater food shortages and did nothing to help anyone except allow the big landowners to squeeze out the little guy
I, too, like living in a pre-industrial society. (Wait, what do you mean odds are I won't be a member of the aristocracy?)
>>1238359
Fucking define "human quality" then. It's clearly not administrative ability, intelligence, or leadership ability if these are the exemplars who have this "human quality".
>Falling for monarchist shitposting this hard
>>1238655
>You don't need industrialization for capitalism, you just need credit and wage labor.
Capitalism depends on the total domination by the bourgeoisie over all other facets of society. Industrialization is what allows them to do this as their native cities become the hubs of nations sucking power and men out of the countryside like a vacuum.
Credit and wage labour alone, as happened in cities prior to industrial capitalism is a very incomplete kind of capitalism that poses no real threat to the powers of the nobility.
>Similarly, you don't need capitalism for industrialization, you just heavy investment in industry.
You see capitalism depends on incentive. The nobility simply have no incentive to be interested in urban industry as they are more than comfortable living off of their agrarian estates. The city dwelling bourgeoisie have a natural interest in expanding the work done by city-dwelling artisans into mass-producing factories and work-shops that can produce more efficiently than ever.
What you appear to be doing is retroactively examining how the nobility could have maintained their economic dominance, which wouldn't occur to nobles at the time until it was too late.
>Or they just introduce negative income tax which keeps most people poor but complacent
You cannot get negative income tax if you have no income. This is the point.
>but it certainly makes him a very different person and not appropriate to compare.
It doesn't, his belief in god is largely irrelevant in this instance.
>Well, let's see
That was not a challenge for you to prove my point.
>That's actually a source of strength. If you have a load of individuals as the nucleus, there can be no devotion, because your loyalty can shift from one to another as they compete
Competition and pragmatic application of loyalty is good.
Having a single nucleus that can be deposed causing society to collapse is bad.
Likewise mass devotion to that nucleus is a bad thing if anything.
>>1237893
Loyalty for the sake of loyalty is fucking idiotic, Constantine.
>>1238068
>No, this is a narcissistic philosophy. If you are not emotionally fulfilled in a marriage, the proper thing to do is to try to make the marriage work better and try to be more loving to your spouse, not to dissolve the marriage.
Oh wow, the unmarried virgin is going to tell us how to maintain a marriage.
>>1238068
>If bonds of loyalty can switched on and off like lights, then loyalty is nonexistent. And without loyalty, there can't be trust, and without trust, society could not possibly function.
This is demonstrably false, you fucking retard. Society continues to function despite having tossed away several monarchs.
>>1236052
too right
>>1238655
Constantine, what do you think of these 3 words?
Protestant Work Ethic
>>1238715
Oh shit. I've never seen a namefag get own'd so hard in real time.
>>1236052
Enclosure is the biggest thing imo. You guys are really fighting the good fight, demolishing towns and shit for more farmland.
Fun fact: when you hear about "freedoms" and "liberties" in regards to 17th century England, it literally only refers to land ownership.
>>1237945
You underestimate the practical benefit of loyalty.
>>1238675
>I already know what subjectivity means, if your argument is so solid you should be able to explain how it fits to monarchs and god in your view.
Monarchs and God perceive, think and act. By those standards, they are subjects, not mere objects.
>Having a vote of 1, to the thousands living in my constituency is more empowering than having no vote at all
But only very marginally
>I know it did, I already said earlier that Cromwell was worse than Charles I. My point is that the Levellers are the actual good guys as opposed to the less-bad guys.
Considering they fought against the king, I wouldn't call them good guys. They share the responsibility for what took the place of the king.
>But it hasn't, everyone below the owner is simply another part of the proletariat.
Ownership is very, very widely distributed, often among workers, especially for their retirement funds. It's not the 19th Century anymore.
>The jobs have become more administrative
Yes, processes include an awful lot more middlemen now, and how much of that administration is proletariat, and how much is bourgeois, is very blurred
>Bourgeois demoracy is a marginal step forward.
How? Does popular consent make someone better at their job? Do you think musicians and writers who get the most marketing and popular approval, are far more competent than the musicians and writers who were supported by the old system? The only thing improved is the technology that makes it much easier to produce writing and music and their instruments, but if the technology weren't changed, it would be an absolute nightmare, because it would mean only pop would be accessible.
>And I'm arguing capitalism is a consequence of industrialisation, which is a consequence of inclosure.
Why do you think industrialization is a product of enclosure? You could argue that the workers having much, much, much worse conditions in industrialization than they did under agriculture was due to enclosure but not industrialization itself
>>1239229
>>I know it did, I already said earlier that Cromwell was worse than Charles I. My point is that the Levellers are the actual good guys as opposed to the less-bad guys.
>Considering they fought against the king, I wouldn't call them good guys. They share the responsibility for what took the place of the king.
The British fought against Hitler, therefore they deserve the blame for Stalin taking the place of Hitler in Eastern Europe.
>>1238675
>If you sincerely believe that the bourgeoisie and the nobility are the same class you are dumbass who knows nothing about economics or history.
I don't, but that's because I understand class rather differently than Marx. If the farming techniques advanced enough for the aristocracy for them to export their produce on a mass scale, how would they be distinguishable from bourgeois landowners in Marx's analysis?
>>1238691
It's not a matter of the rights of an individual, it's the rights of a family. You can't really understand it because you identify as an individual rather than a family, but if you lived in the past, this question would be rather, "Why should that family have the right more than any other family?" And of course that would be a silly thing to ask, it would be like asking the family who has made shoes for generations, "My family should be making the shoes and your family should do my family's job."
>>1238706
Enclose did not foment industrialization, investment did.
If I had a choice between being a worker in the industrial revolution, and being an agrarian peasant, I'd pick the latter without any pause for consideration
>>1239229
>But only very marginally
Infinitely, actually. Having zero power is infinitely less than having a very small amount of power.
>>1239261
>It's not a matter of the rights of an individual, it's the rights of a family. You can't really understand it because you identify as an individual rather than a family, but if you lived in the past, this question would be rather, "Why should that family have the right more than any other family?" And of course that would be a silly thing to ask, it would be like asking the family who has made shoes for generations, "My family should be making the shoes and your family should do my family's job."
The difference here is that the shoemaker wont go around brutally murdering anyone who says they can offer a better service.
>>1239261
Is it true that you're an orthodox nun tranny IRL?
>>1238745
>Credit and wage labour alone, as happened in cities prior to industrial capitalism is a very incomplete kind of capitalism that poses no real threat to the powers of the nobility.
You're kidding yourself if you don't think there was a struggle between merchant and bourgeois class, and the aristocratic class, prior to industrialization. The English Civil War was essentially about that, and was only possible because the bourgeois class had gotten fairly powerful.
>The nobility simply have no incentive to be interested in urban industry as they are more than comfortable living off of their agrarian estates.
You seem forget that cities generally fell management of nobles as well, and nobles certainly would have an interested cultivating that with industrialization.
>You cannot get negative income tax if you have no income. This is the point.
Negative income tax is highest when you have no income. It's like basic income, except scaled.
>It doesn't
It absolutely does, if you can't see the major distinction between Kim Jong Un in conscience, morality, temperament, and management strategy, this is a completely pointless discussion to continue any further.
>Competition and pragmatic application of loyalty is good.
That's not actually loyalty.
>>1238764
Loyalty purely as utility is not loyalty, is it?
>>1239261
>If I had a choice between being a worker in the industrial revolution, and being an agrarian peasant, I'd pick the latter without any pause for consideration.
I actually agree with you. The Industrial Revolution did a pretty big hit on workers living standards, and Western European (NOT Russian, Chinese, etc.) farmers had it surprisingly comfy.
But it's all relative. That "comfy" agrarian life with all the feast days, traditional pace of life, close to the land, etc., would look and feel like 3rd-world poverty if you were forced into it today. The Industrial Revolution may not have been "nice" to the majority in the sort term. But (besides my belief that it was inevitable) the mass production it enabled was utterly necessary for living standards to increase for the majority in the long run.
>>1239267
No, having negative infinite power is infinitely less than having a very small amount of power. Having zero power is marginally less than having marginal power.
>>1239271
He will if the service is by far the most critical one in the country and craved by many willing to kill the shoemaker for the job.
>>1239282
I'm not a tranny, not sure where this meme comes from.
>>1239288
>Loyalty purely as utility is not loyalty, is it?
It's still loyalty, it's just built on the expectation that it's a two way street. Loyalty without reciprocation is basically the grounds for an abusive relationship. To hear you say it, the citizens of North Korea should be happy to have dear leader at the top; that every beaten spouse should stay with their partner and be happy because they signed a piece of paper.
It's like you seriously have no attachment to the real world at all.
>>1239291
>That "comfy" agrarian life with all the feast days, traditional pace of life, close to the land, etc., would look and feel like 3rd-world poverty if you were forced into it today.
That's solely because our methods of production are much more advanced, we have clothing and food in much greater abundance as well as all sorts of housing utilities. It has nothing to do with a more humane system. And the truth is, this drop in humanness was not required for industrialization, if anything, the work hours should have gone *down*
>>1239301
Dont deny it slut.
>>1239306
You're conflating a deal with loyalty.
The guy in charge of North Korea is there because of populist, anti-monarchist ideology.
>>1239261
>It's not a matter of the rights of an individual, it's the rights of a family. You can't really understand it because you identify as an individual rather than a family, but if you lived in the past, this question would be rather, "Why should that family have the right more than any other family?" And of course that would be a silly thing to ask, it would be like asking the family who has made shoes for generations, "My family should be making the shoes and your family should do my family's job."
Well, if I can do an objectively better job than running the state than you can, is it such a silly thing to ask?
I understand that people in the past may have identified more as a member of a family than an autonomous individual, but I'm not asking why they in the past thought monarchy was justified. I'm asking why you seem to think it is justified today and/or justified in the abstract on moral principles. That "family" line may explain the justifications used in the past but doesn't really justify anything itself.
>>1239309
Right, I get that. I just don't know how we can go back to that sort of comfy lifestyle without also losing the material abundance we have today, which I would pick if I had to pick one. When you say work hours should have gone down, it sounds like you have a solution. Do you?
>>1239288
>Loyalty purely as utility is not loyalty, is it?
Not him but approaching things from a perspective of utility is pretty much the definition of master morality. You are loyal to something so long as it increases your own relative growth. When leaders become corrupt you discard them, by force if necessary.
We discarded monarchism because the emerging capitalist system was superior.
>>1239327
>Well, if I can do an objectively better job than running the state than you can, is it such a silly thing to ask?
You? Or your family? Because the idea of disposable rulers would seem ludicrous for so critical of a task, the idea would be a consistent ruler who lasted generations, which is not an individual, but a dynasty. Consistency and stability were vital for cohesion.
>That "family" line may explain the justifications used in the past but doesn't really justify anything itself.
It does, because your identification as an individual is less arbitrary than to identify oneself with a family. In fact, it's probably more trained and perverse than familial identiication
>>1239338
A great deal of our abundance is excessive and brought about through manufacturing demand. If marketing ceased, it would probably alleviate most of the problem.
>>1239346
>utility is pretty much the definition of master morality.
Yet I'm pretty sure Nietzsche hated modernism and capitalism, and found the older systems much more beautiful.
>>1239318
The Kim Jong is a royal family in all but name. They even use theology to say that God has chosen their family as the rightful ruler of the kingdom. Fuck man Kim Il-sung also united the land under one religion.
In a way Kim Il-sung is the modern day Constantine. Communism is basically the most highly evolved form of Christianity.
>>1239361
Nietzsche was never advocating for going back to the old ways, he was recognizing that old systems of order were long gone and so he looked to the future by drawing inspiration from and criticizing contemporary and historical matters of life.
>>1239354
>Consistency and stability were vital for cohesion
"Were" again, not "are"
>It does, because your identification as an individual is less arbitrary than to identify oneself with a family. In fact, it's probably more trained and perverse than familial identiication
Why is it more perverse?
I'd also argue that they are not entirely incompatible. I definitely identify as a member of a family and my wishes and goals are modified by their culture, expectations, and implications, but I also identify as an individual with inalienable rights. Merely because families with traditions and expectations are a thing doesn't mean my individual rights disappear or that you should be more equal in the eyes of the law than I am.
>>1236052
>murder of Stafford
Charles signed the act of attainder
>>1239361
Nietzsche;s ideal world is a competitive caste system and society that affirms all things, and loves war.
Capitilism has proven itself to be this embodiment. The market is one of the most brutal competitions imaginable, the bussiness man has become the new Aristocrate. In an unrestricted market all things are affirmed, all things are products to be consumed and loved. Everything is made sacred! And of course capitalism is an unstoppable war machine. It defeated both Communinism, Fascism, and a Monarchism (japan) because the system never runs out of steam and is monsterously efficient. It kept pushing until it dominates everything.
Capitilism is also the only real thing advancing art. Art innovation keeps improving every day to keep pace with the huge demands of movies and video games. It has given us the most amazing art tools in such as Maya and produced the next generation of art mediums. You gotta admit 1987 Robocop is a hell of a lot better than thing made from the med-evil period.
>>1239410
Reading Nietzsche as an endorsement of any existing system over another is a mistake.
This includes slave v master morality.
>>1239318
Loyalty is a deal. All interaction is inherently transactional. Seriously, have you no place within this world at all? Do you not see it around you?
Besides, those kings come from somewhere. At one point, they were assholes (well, their ancestors were) disrupting the social norm.
>>1239301
No, zero is infinitely less. It is an infinity, an absolute, so any amount of power is infinitely greater than it.
>>1239407
>Capitalism
>Life affirming
>Producing high art
Capitalism is the pinnacle of last-man culture.
>>1239436
He regretted it, but he still did it
>>1239437
You do realize that modern computer art programs are basically a fucking Renaissance? You can achieve levels that would be almost impossible traditional paint using stuff like Gimp or 3d studios Max and do it in a fraction of the time.
Nietzche understood the best art to be the most complicated. Which is why he said theatre was the highest art because it combined every other art medium available at the time: music, writing, acting, even 2d for the props. Using this logic video games and movies would be the proper successor for art. Video games are objectively the most complex type of art combining literally every other art aspect with a new aspect of competation (the other thing Nietzsche loved).
But if you want to do disagree. answer me this one question? Where is the good art coming from if not from capitalism? Than tell me what type of art you yourself spend most time with, so we know whether or not you are a hypocrite.
>>1239446
He didn't just regret it, he considered the civil war a punishment sent by God in retribution.
>>1239465
A renaissance in being a fucking pleb.
That's fundamentally what capitalist """""art"""" is, a big race to the bottom to accrue the fattest profits by producing the most plebeian shit imaginable.
It is true that our modern art is extremely complicated in a practical sense by virtue of the technology of it. However it has only been dumbed down in an idealistic sense. Popular art today falls flat in conjuring up any sophisticated sense of vision or emotion but simply exists as an object to be consumed and forgotten about rather than contemplated and appreciated.
Video games, by nature of how expensive they can be to produce wind up being among the most plebeian of art forms as it massively needs to make large returns on the money invested. However this is it not to say all games are plebeian, however it is undeniable that the overwhelming majority of games market themselves and are designed for the lowest common denominator of consumers.
Video games are the absolute pinnacle of art not made with any investment or vision on the part of the artist, but a pure business-like greed to appeal to consumer wants.
>, so we know whether or not you are a hypocrite.
I'm a giant pleb myself, I'm listening to the Cocteau Twins and my favourite movie is Clerks.
However I am very aware that Nietzsche would massively disapprove of my lifestyle, and acknowledge that this capitalist system of plebeianism is totally at odds with his philosophy.
>>1239465
Oh and I forgot one thing.
>Where is the good art coming from if not from capitalism?
Communists have proven themselves to be the kings of high-art and otherwise quality past-times.
Made the arts and sports available to everyone regardless of status whilst also heavily encouraging them. If people wanted to listen to consume plebeian shit they could, however it was given no major support so unlike in the west where the most pleb music receives the widest audience it was the exact opposite.
Rather than changing the art for the people, people were changed for the art. But of course because in the capitalist west no one gives a fuck about this not many people know about the communist appreciation of art.
Bear in mind I do not mean "good" art, what is good is subjective. I mean high-culture in opposition to popular-culture.
If you are a pleb you will like popular-culture and that's fine, however Nietzsche is not plebs.
>>1239507
Have you seen the new Macbeth? It's pretty good, its take on Macbeth is an emphasis on pre-Christian paganism lurking beneath the Christian veneer of of Scotland. It opens with Macbeth and Lady Macbeth giving a pagan funeral to their child, and witches fit very appropriately as adherents of the old pagan beliefs. Shakespeare had in mind the context of King James' witchhunts, but I really like this new take.
>>1239507
>Popular art today falls flat in conjuring up any sophisticated sense of vision or emotion
There plenty of people that get emotional at movies and video games. How are you concluding otherwise? How can you not say that Conan the Barbarian is not an enforcement of the masculine ideal?
>market themselves and are designed for the lowest common denominator of consumers.
This has always been the case with art. ALWAYS. Do you think the average artist was a Da Vinci? No 99% of them sucked. The average muscian was some guy in a tavern, half drinking plucking at the strings sining folk songs with other drunk people.
>Video games are the absolute pinnacle of art not made with any investment or vision on the part of the artist, but a pure business-like greed to appeal to consumer wants.
And this is how the vast majority of art was made. Artists had to make a leaving so they had to do what the client wanted. There is also nothing to prevent an artist from both trying to make money
When comparing art you need to look at the top tier stuff. Good game and movie environments blow away even the best landscape art. As I said our modern artists are working with tools that give them so much more power than the old masters. Think about how hard it is change a sculpture once you started compared to how easy it is to alter a 3d model. A mountain in a painting is static but in a movie or game it's part of a narration that you the hero can go do, it can be seen from multiple angles, there's so much more you can do with moving pictures.
>the art you enjoy
the point is this. If you really think the current art made by capitilism is so bad there must be good things to contrast it. I find people that criticize the current art world are incapable of provind an alternative and they themself enjoy this "bad art" far more than any alternative they could think of.
I'd say capitalism has the potential to allow an affirmation of Nietzsche's ideal, and a greater potential than any other system by virtue of the comparative freedom it offers, but as it stands it's trended towards the ultimate realization of the "last man."
Just came here to say that Constantine is a fucking moron
That is all, please continue.
>>1239559
No I haven't, it sounds pretty good though.
I assume this is a stage reimagining?
>>1239540
>Communists have proven themselves to be the kings of high-art and otherwise quality past-times.
Who invented Maya? Who invented pretty much every importaint innovation the in art world? Captilists or Communists?
>pleb pleb pleb
There are plebs in all countries and they all have their art. If you want to discuss what has made the best art you can't say "look pop music there for this systems sucks" You have to look at the countrie's top tier art.
How many decent movies can you name that were not made under a capitilist system of destribution? If you look at any critics top 10 list it's all going to becoming from this stuff.
Fantasia and Bambi represent some of the greatest 2d art in the history of the world and they are made exactly by the same capitalist system you ridicule.
>>1239540
Adorno's aesthetics are, in a way, an atheistic version of Medieval aesthetics. Adorno sees the piece itself as the mysterious subject beyond either the mere expression of the artist, or as mere objects for the creativity of the viewer, as with Barthes. The theistic manifestation of this aesthetic is no where more apparent than in Orthodox the very Medieval Orthodox icons, which are kissed and seen as windows to mystical truth and living subjects.
>>1239598
They're also a good way for the church to jew some dosh by putting a mercy box under every fucking one of them in church.
>>1239582
It's the new film, the 2015 one. It preserves the setting and the dialogue, but where Shakespeare's works is intended as a manifestation of contemporary ideology, this version actually manages to take what's anachronistic about it and makes it work perfectly with the period. Macbeth is a man who grew up pagan and didn't become Christian until adulthood (or so I gather from the film), and that influences his values and perspective on things like masculinity. The play in its raw form is influenced both by King James paranoid of witches and the masculinization of women, whereas this takes these elements and weaves them organically into native pagan culture. And the contrast (or sometimes lack thereof) between agonist ideologies and Western Christian ideology is more immortal theme, as shown by the timelessness of works like Moby Dick and Blood Meridian.
>>1239561
>There plenty of people that get emotional at movies and video games. How are you concluding otherwise?
The emotion of fucking Conan the Barbarian, or The Da Vinci Code or some such is no where near the emotion evoking by the plays of Wagner, or the poetry of Goethe or other such high culture. It is an appeal to plebeian sensibilities as opposed to the more cerebral and evocative imagery conjured by the high culture of old, which ties into my next point
>No 99% of them sucked. The average muscian was some guy in a tavern, half drinking plucking at the strings sining folk songs with other drunk people.
This is the thing.
The orchestral music of court was high culture paid for by the wealthy and cultured elite, the folk music of taverns was low culture appreciated by uncultured plebs. This is too the case with modern day culture, only rather than the elite funding high art for the sake of art, they fund plebeian art for the sake of profit.
This is why capitalism is the worst thing ever to happen to high art.
> Artists had to make a leaving so they had to do what the client wanted. There is also nothing to prevent an artist from both trying to make money
Yes, only back then the client was wealthy patrons as I say funding art for the sake of the art itself rather than funding art that would appeal to plebs so that they could make money.
I'm repeating my previous point a bit but the point is no less the same. There was a time when top-quality art was funded because the elite wanted to appreciate the art yet now almost all investment into art is done so not for the sake of art but for the sake of materialistic gain.
1/2
>>1239634
>As I said our modern artists are working with tools that give them so much more power than the old masters.
> mountain in a painting is static but in a movie or game it's part of a narration that you the hero can go do, it can be seen from multiple angles
This is what you fail to understand.
Static paintings too work to create a narrative. They're constructed to be evocative and craft an imagine of beauty that resonates with the soul rather than just imitating a real life landscape.
The purpose of a video game landscape is somewhere to put the protagonist as part of a narrative.
The purpose of a well-painted landscape is simply self-explanatory, the landscape is a narrative in itself.
> I find people that criticize the current art world are incapable of provind an alternative and they themself enjoy this "bad art" far more than any alternative they could think of.
I'm not saying it's bad art. I'm saying it's low culture.
There is no such thing as bad art as art is subjective. However there is such a thing plebeian art because it's made for a specific audience with specific sensibilities.
>>1239617
We don't have that. You only put money in a plate to buy a candle (my parish uses the honor system, you put whatever money in you do, then take a candle and light it and place it next to the other candles representing bringing light into the world), and the collection plate at the end of the Liturgy. There are several icons to kiss and venerate coming in, but they don't have any boxes or plates with them.
>tfw you will never be at Theaureaujohn's side as that batshit Jew obsessed millerianist absolute madman charges alone into the Parliament with like two pistols and a sword.
>>1239661
We also all share one spoon that the priest gives communion to us with (the bread and wine are mixed together). Babies included.
>>1239674
Gross.
>>1239589
>Who invented Maya? Who invented pretty much every importaint innovation the in art world? Captilists or Communists?
Why is it that the Soviet Union produced so many master classical musicians?
Why are the paintings of the USSR so much more akin to those of old masters than western modern art?
What do capitalists have? Toy Story, fantastic.
>There are plebs in all countries and they all have their art. If you want to discuss what has made the best art you can't say "look pop music there for this systems sucks"
I'm not saying the system sucks, nor am I saying the art is bad.
I'm saying the art is plebeian and the system encourages appealing to plebs. Which capitalism does by nature of its inherent profit-incentive.
>How many decent movies can you name that were not made under a capitilist system of destribution?
Come and See
Andrei Rublev
The Cranes are Flying
Moscow Does not Believe in Tears
Solaris
There are so many great communist movies, yet few watch them because unlike the plebeian culture of the west it isn't mass-marketed and exported.
> art in the history of the world and they are made exactly by the same capitalist system you ridicule.
You seem to be taking "plebeian" as an insult. I do not mean it that way nor am I deriding capitalism, I'm simply pointing out that Nietzsche would absolute hate the plebeian nature of it.
>>1239627
Thanks, mate. I'll give it a look.
>>1239670
>"come out you cuckold"
>that guy brandishing his cock
Dat banter.
>>1239634
The Knights of the Round stories are the an example of the high culture of the elites. It was written by nobles for other nobles in court.
These are very similar to something like Conan, Robocop, or even video games in their narrative structure. They emphasized action and adventure for the male audiencese and courtship for the female audience inbetween there are woven. There are some deeper elements, metaphors about personal development and the self vs society. But these things too can be found in modern movies. Some of the ways of communicating thsi stuff int he Author stories would frankly fit will into action animes. In one version the hero that defeats the black knight becomes corrupted and becomes the new black knight, his friend goes to rescue him and he remembers his true self. This is retold in a certain Kill La Kill episode.
Now I will ask you this youv'e made 2 whole posts but never gave the slightest statement about what "high" art is and how it differs from low art. What is "cultured" stuff for "non-plebs"? What TRAITS does it have?
>>1239706
The Consolation of Philosophy and The Divine Comedy are clearly not pleb.
>>1239649
So how do you justify your faith with the incredibly corrupt organization that the Orthodox Church has become in the countries that it dominates?
>>1239722
I'm asking what traits define pleb and non-pleb things. If you can't give a definition than they are meaningless buzzwords?
>>1239706
To quote the man himself
>the whole of modern culture is essentially internal: on the outside the bookbinder
has printed something like “Handbook for Inner Culture for External Barbarians.”
This opposition between inside and outside makes the outside still more barbaric
than it would need to be were a rude people to grow out of itself alone according
to its rough requirements. For what means is left to nature to take in what imposes
itself so excessively? Only the one means, to accept it as easily as possible in order quickly to lay it aside again and expel it. This gives rise to a habit of not taking actual things too seriously anymore, this gives rise to the “weak personality” as a result of which the actual and enduring make only a minimal impression; in externals one finally becomes ever more casual and indolent and widens the critical gulf between content and form to the point of insensitivity to barbarism, if only the memory is stimulated ever anew, if only ever new things to be known keep streaming in to be neatly put on display in the cases of that memory.
Not that I agree with him, but I think one way of looking at modern "plebian" art as Nietzschean is in the values it endorses towards the masses. The recent spat of superhero movies pushing the heroic ideal, or Conan the Barbarian pushing masculinity, or even something like Doom endorsing endless vicious conflict that tempers an individual towards something greater. They may not push it with much (or any) subtlety, and they may be oriented towards the lowest common denominator, but they do push values that fit in line with Nietzsche's ideal.
>>1239735
Not sure what you mean. Romania is the only country that has corruption issues, and that's because parents pressure their kids into becoming priests.
>>1239738
I think sophistication is the most common distinction.
>>1239761
The old Conan movie references Nietzsche profusely. Nietzsche's ideal isn't in line with superheroes though, it's more like Riddick.
>>1239772
>The old Conan movie references Nietzsche profusely. Nietzsche's ideal isn't in line with superheroes though, it's more like Riddick.
I think it varies with the specific superheroes. Some are distinctly masters, such as Iron Man, Batman, and (maybe, I'm not sure here, but I'm trying to go with recent examples) Deadpool whereas others like Captain America or the X-Men don't particularly fit it.
>>1239772
>I think sophistication is the most common distinction.
This really hasn't made it any more clear. What do you mean by sophistication? State of the art video games and movies are highly sophisticated, it takes a very large team and using complicated tools like Unreal Engine 4, a tool so sophisticated it a whole team of brilliant programmers 10 years to create it. You could also say Toy Story is highly sophisticated in it's pioneering use of 3d? Or that Tom Savini' work in Dawn of the Dead is sophisticated?
>>1239796
I also think video games are very poor art, because they don't accentuate alterity, and they are narcissistic in participation (acting in a play someone else wrote, or playing a piece of music someone else wrote is art, but playing a game someone else designed is not art).
The distinction I've been fond of between high and low art is in how difficult the emotions it attempts to appeal to are to reach, and the subtlety with which it does so. So for example pornography, would constitute low art at its most essential form, lust is easy to appeal to and it does with the subtlety of a hammer.
>>1239761
I think there's a deeper dimension to Nietzschean art than masculinity and war. There's also a level of poetic temperment and emotional evocation to it.
A lot of our modern cultural motifs do fit in with Nietsche's worldview, but they do so whilst lacking the tempering elements that would distinguish it against the herd. As a matter of fact often their vision of masculinity and heroism places itself in opposition to Nietzschean ideals.
Take for instance the 4chan favourite, The Dark Knight Rises. Bane is a cultured individuals that cultivated great strength by overcoming great adversity, then usurping power in a very sneaky way akin to that Nietzsche praised of the priestly slave morality then on the obverse conjuring great strength and skill to destroy.
In the most famous scene of this piece we can read a lot into this representation of Bane's character in opposition to the slave-moralizing arm of institutional authoritarianism, CIA.
In this Bane's master plan begin to come to fruition in that he crashes the plane of herd morality with no surviors, not even himself. Because in this act he overcomes, leaving the fire to rise of life over logic. In doing so there is nothing left but life, and so life-affiming will always triumph leaving the big guy to always be in charge as later referred to in the movie when he says to the man who was once the master.
>Do you feel in charge?
>>1239814
I think also the understanding of catharsis determines the quality of the art. Porn, for instance, obviously is about catharsis, but it's about it in the exact opposite sense which Christianity uses to term.
>>1239807
>No, Loki and Joker are more Nietzschean than any of the heroes.
I disagree on the Joker, since he's fundamentally nihilistic, and giving it further thought disagree with Loki since his entire driving force is resentment. Batman and Ironman both pursue their own moral systems at their own conscience, with little regard for the herd. Hell one of the major themes that crops up with Ironman is the herd attempting to drag him down.
Please stop, Constantine. You never do anything but butcher Nietzsche.
>>1239817
Congratulations.
>>1239817
I forgot to mention.
Bane is the bad guy, which represents a trend in capeshit of placing itself in opposition to Nietzschean ideals in favour of the status quo.
>>1239825
The Joker isn't nihilistic in how Nietzsche used the term, he's nihilistic in the sense people like to apply the term to Nietzsche. The Joker sees values, but his values are purely aesthetic and life-affirming. He doesn't see no value in things, he only sees artistic value.
Loki's driving force in Thor is resentmnet, but it's just a desire for power later.
I'M butchering Nietzsche? You're the one trying to apply him to pop capeshit, he would vomit if he read what you were saying.
>>1239825
Batman and Ironman fall much more in line with Nietzsche's ideals on the count that they already begin as masters. They're both extremely wealthy businessmen and as such represent a degree of master morality.
However Nietzsche's point isn't that master morality a best, it's that like slave-morality it too must be overcome.
>>1239839
I said I can see elements of Nietzsche's ideal in pop-culture cape shit. It serves a function in illustrating an ideal to the masses. You meanwhile are just doing your typical spiel of trying to conflate Nietzchean ideals with mindless, hedonistic egoism.
The Joker tears down values for the sake of tearing them down, and builds nothing in its stead. He's a driving force of pure nihilism.
Loki's desire for power is fundamentally rooted in resenting his position among the Asgardian pantheon, he seeks to rule for the sake of mollifying his own wounded ego.
>>1239844
>they have money so they're Nietzschean
>>1239844
They're not just wealthy businessmen, but highly capable self-motivated individuals who use their position as a means to establish their values.
>>1239853
The Joker builds art in their stead. His burning money isn't just an act of resentment against money, it's an aesthetic expression
Not by the Avengers, no, it's not
>>1239856
No, I'm saying they're masters so they tend to align with master morality.
My point is that master morality is not Nietzschean.
>>1239862
But they don't align to master morality at all. Master morality isn't good vs. evil.
>>1239862
Then what is Nietzschean?
>>1239873
Destroying the values of the world and imposing your own. Christ, for instance.
>>1239807
So is this just a case of total subjectivity? I saw you posting some "traditional Christian" music and I legitimately think pop music is leagues above that snooze-fest.
What if I told you that this is beautiful?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK8gvqWEFpk&list=FLCw11gRz5QjPuYY0rRZynhw&index=10
>>1239813
Video games are the ultimate in art immersion because you become one with the art. I remember awhile I ago heard a song from Secret of Mana playing by accident. I listened to it and I was a child again.
Video games are also ultimately a celebration of life, especially the violent ones. Once you can affirm death than the harmony of opposites goes full circle and you love life.
>>1239879
Christ didn't create any new values. Everything he believed was already present in Judaism in some form or another. About the only thing that changed was getting rid of some sacrificial laws.
I know it's bad form to inb4 myself, but inb4 some textbook of a response that splits endless hairs.
>>1239873
There's significant debate about what exactly Nietzsche was encouraging, but it's generally agreed that it would appear kind of like Goethe's personality.
>>1239891
What was Goethe's personality like?
Is the Nietzschean ideal anything like the Stirnerian ideal?
>>1239872
They do. Batman in particular is master morality as fuck. Ironman just happens to embody some attributes of it.
And I never said it's good v evil.
>>1239879
Christ tried to escape the world. He was someone extremly intolerant to pain and suffering. So he turned the whole world into a dream, an illusion and retreated into his "kingdom of light".
I remember I was watching a clip from passion of the Christ, very boring movie. It got to the death scene of Jesus and I thought it sucked.Than I heard the cry of the Ubermench, a charcter came forth pointed and laughed at Jesus. That guy was the real Ubermench, the guy who can laugh at suffering. The Jesus on the cross represented weakness, that's why he is crying out for his father. I realized from that why I never liked the cross, because the guy on it is a lsoer. The guy laughing at him represents Nietzchean strength.
Incidently do you know what Jesus does in the Gnostic traditions when he dies? He laughs. The Gospel version of Jesus never laughs once during his life. They are opposites. Christian Jesus is a Slave, Gnostic Jesus is a Master
When I do I hope I'm not a loser like Jesus, I hope I can laugh at death.
>>1239881
It's awful music. Artistic depravity is only commendable when it is a critique of depravity (Naked Lunch, for instance). This piece just conveys confusion with literally no point except to be avant garde..
>Video games are the ultimate in art immersion because you become one with the art.
Which is narcissistic art, because you are not participating as an artistic yourself, but rather just doing the artistic equivalent of masturbation, feeling the false sensation of being an artist without actually being one.
>Once you can affirm death than the harmony of opposites goes full circle and you love life.
Except you don't actually kill anyone. It's a way to make believe you're powerful without actually pulling an Eliot Rodger
>>1239896
Appreciated art to a great extent, his worldview was unique and massively shifted over the course of his life incorporating and overcoming many conventional traditions, was a very cultured and worldly individual in general that did not shy away from embracing life. As witnessed in how his poetry was often very erotic, but equally his art was very aesthetic and lofty. He did not deny more base sensibilities, but equally he did not reduce himself to just that.
>Is the Nietzschean ideal anything like the Stirnerian ideal?
No, the Ubermensch is all about creating values, aesthetics, and this worldliness, it's not about logic to any significant degree but rather about life. It's almost Christian in a way.
Stirner is all about this worldliness and such, but lacks the aesthetic and creative fineries of Nietzsche. Do not however they were both very inspired by Goethe.
>>1239889
>theosis, the centrality of forgiveness, and the affirmation of suffering were all central Jewish concepts before Christ
Excuse me?
>>1239899
They certainly see it that way though.
>>1239916
You sound like you're just projecting qualities onto people with no actual basis in fact. I may as well call films or books "Voyeuristic art" because people use them to look on the lives of people more interesting or powerful than them, or people who are in more interesting situations than them.
>Except you don't actually kill anyone. It's a way to make believe you're powerful without actually pulling an Eliot Rodger
I think can see why people dislike you now
>>1239913
The material is an illusion in Gnostic tradition, so of course it wouldn't mean anything to him.
The Passion of Christ is very Western, not Orthodox. Orthodox icons never portray Christ suffering on the cross, the only portray him dead, looking serene.
>>1239939
Games are narcissistic art. Great art accentuates alterity, bad art is like Ian Fleming, it looks for vicarious thrills.
>>1239944
And books are voyeuristic art. How does one live vicariously through tetris anyway? Or any kind of abstract game with no real character?
>>1239960
Yeah they are.
Genre fiction is for fucking plebs.
>>1239960
Books, if they're good, accentuate alterity. If they're bad, they make the main character an empty box for the reader to identify themselves with, like Twilight or Fifty Shades or Harry Potter.
>How does one live vicariously through tetris anyway? Or any kind of abstract game with no real character?
It's nothing but the self, there is zero alterity. These games seek to completely eradicate even the illusion of the alter. They're certainly fine puzzle games, but they are not art, and to try to say they are is apples to oranges.
>>1239974
Not that guy, but games absolutely encourage alterity, in fact the very notion of escapism is rooted in this.
Your notion of games giving you the idea of being an artist without having actually done anything artistic is absurd. They're no more narcissistic than appreciating a painting, you just don't happen to enjoy how you appreciate a game.
Go fucking play something like Pathologic and tell me that there's nothing about it that fits the definition of alterity, you fucking cunt.
>>1240011
>absolutely encourage alterity
No, the protagonist is a self-insert, that's the opposite of alterity. And certainly there is not alterity with the people you kill, they are completely dehumanized.
A painting is not a self-insert. Self-insert art, like choir or acting, has to be as an artist, or else your self-insert is masturbation.
>>1240030
>no the protagonist is a self-insert
Actually, the protagonist is just a vehicle with which to view the artwork, providing a means with which the artist can allow the viewer to see what they wish to see. You're conflating the fact that video games are predominantly something designed to appeal to a mass market with a complete lack of artistic potential.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/04/10/butchering-pathologic-part-1-the-body/
Here, check this out. Games totally have potential as an artistic medium.
So stop being a stereotypical bitter neckbeard that insists the art you enjoy is the only valid art and open your fucking mind a bit.
>>1240046
>you're a neckbeard if you don't think comic books and video games are artistic
Guess I'm guilty then.
Everything said about this game exists in Harry Potter.
"Characters lie."
Okay, great, that's a smashing breakthrough in video games, but that's also something every cheap thriller has. Unless the psychologies and themes are a lot more sophisticated than in cheap thrillers, it's not really artistic, in fact what is a basic-tier component to drama is here showcased as a novelty, showing how far behind video games are.
>>1239916
This the third post and you have failed to provide a proper defination for non-pleb art. The other annons managed to come up with a description of it.
I specifically choose a song I knew you would hate to prove a point. You have no objective measurement of art, you just call art you dislike bad.
So I will ask you AGAIN. What is the definition of pleb and non-pleb art? Give me words that have a clear definition. If you cannot do this than you have no right to say that some art is better than another because you have no yardstick to measure by.
>>1240030
>No, the protagonist is a self-insert,
>I have never played a game in my life and assume all games have blank slate protgaonists
>video games promote the feeling of power
only absolute slave, such as yourself, could think this is a bad thing.
>>1240193
>So I will ask you AGAIN. What is the definition of pleb and non-pleb art?
Patrician art accentuates alterity, revelation and/or mystery. Pleb art accentuates autism (I mean that is in its etymological sense: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=autism), denudation and/or confusion. It's essentially the difference between loving sex and masturbation, and the foundation for Scruton's philosophy of sex.
>I have never played a game in my life and assume all games have blank slate protgaonists
Doesn't have anything to do with it. Harry Potter is hardly a blank slate in the books, but he is nonetheless meant to be a surrogate that most readers can readily utilize.
>only absolute slave, such as yourself, could think this is a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure Nietzsche relished power as something sought for actually, not as escapism
>>1241058
>Patrician art accentuates alterity, revelation and/or mystery.
So Metroid is art. So is any game that emphasizes exploration or discovery. Or even something as simple as the anticipation of learning what the next stage looks like in a linear game. It can as simple as wanting to see what is over the next hill.
The involvement of the viewer in the narrative also makes it the most direct thing
>I'm pretty sure Nietzsche relished power as something sought for actually, not as escapism
I'm pretty sure Nietzche rejected the idea of there being a "real" and "simulated" world. Everything is perspective, everything is simulation, and the will to power penetrates each. What's beautiful about video games is they develop the player's love of power: the love of skill, of becoming 'better', of seeking strong competation to test oneself. Games are the only art form that can teach these virtues, because as you said the viewer is also a participant.
I do agree games lack certain narrative powers preciously because the viewer is a participant.
>>1241665
No, discovered is to denude. Revelation is quite different from discovery, it's the major division between science and religion.
>I'm pretty sure Nietzsche rejected the idea of there being a "real" and "simulated" world
That's true, but he still believed there to be spheres, degrees of power, and a video game isn't even the degree of power of having an ant farm.
>What's beautiful about video games is they develop the player's love of power: the love of skill, of becoming 'better', of seeking strong competation to test oneself.
Sports do this with much more vitality than video games.
>Games are the only art form that can teach these virtues, because as you said the viewer is also a participant.
The viewer is not a participant as an artist, as with choir or acting. Unless you are contesting that playing video games is an artform like singing and acting.
>>1241700
>No, discovered is to denude.
You admit that you do not play games. So I will tell you there are certain sensations that games just do a million times better than any other medium ever can, there are also certain things games cannot do as well.
So far your definitions of art have said nothing games do not offer. Furthermore you have failed to provide a defination that say for instance that Robocop is not high art while something like Inferno is high art.
>The viewer is not a participant as an artist, as with choir or acting. Unless you are contesting that playing video games is an artform like singing and acting.
Games are unique as an art form in that they are similatiniously art and a game. While this is not completely new (for instance finely crafted chess pieces) it has never been done with such scale. The music, sprites, 3d models, and level lay out in games alone are art. But than the input and objectives are added and it becomes both art and game.
>Sports do this with much more vitality than video games.
Sports are good, in some ways they lack the intensity of games. I remember I let a 4 year old child play Grief Syndrome and he was visibly desturbed at the death animation, he was young but he still realized the avatar was dead because he wasn't good enough. After he saw that he took the game very seriously.
Sports also completely lack a narrative and in no way art, we are discussing art here.
Games have power, not direct power but they shape the sphere of culture. The fundmentals of a game of conflict, resolution by skill, and the glorifaction of said things are highly masculine and I think enforce some good ends.
>>1238359
They don't go into specifics about crucial topics like pigeon sacrifice but this is a pretty good start for "preferable volume".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz3EEqtcJME
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
>>1239580
I have to agree. His tendency to create arbitrary distinctions as a way to dismiss arguments means he's either a deluded moron or a talented troll
>>1239670
>>tfw you will never be at Theaureaujohn's side as that batshit Jew obsessed millerianist absolute madman charges alone into the Parliament with like two pistols and a sword.
Who?
>>1240073
Except Harry Potter isn't a bleak, oppressive environment that compels you to work through a mystery that brings an ultimately horrific conclusion.
And yes, you are a neckbeard. You're a stereotype of the alt-right.
