"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
If there is to be any hope of countering of the Globalist powers that be, we must unite under a label. Being the "Silent Majority" is not enough; the sheeple are united, while we are scattered.
What does /pol/ think of "Objectivist?"
>>73358101
Objectivism is retarded.
What else do you expect from an ideology made from equal parts butthurt about communism and female sexual frustration?
>>73358195
>female sexual frustration
What?
>>73358195
>Objectivism is retarded
Why?
>>73358263
The heroes of Ayn Rand novels are extremely sexualized. They're all strong, rugged baddasses that you'd normally only see in the erotica section.
It would be very gay if Ayn Rand were not a woman.
>>73358195
The female sexual frustration is totally apparent in the writing. Roark pls destroy me~
But really, I really think you're missing the forest for the trees, m8. The philosophy is solid and the aim is totally in line with the best parts of Nazi /pol/
>>73358101
Is good. We will influence the meaning to suit ourselves. Just as the feminists have changed the meaning of 'rape' to mean "I regretted it in the morning"
>>73358101
> He's not a logical positivist
>>73358195
fpbp
Honestly, Objectivism can be described as "call whatever Ayn Rand liked objectively good, and anyone who has a different opinion irrational looter who doesn't really want to live".
They used to believe smoking cigarettes is objectively good because Rand was a smoker, for Christ's sake.
>>73358398
Man IS not heroic. But he CAN/COULD be heroic
>with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life
So you want an emotion, a chemical reaction in the brain, to be man's moral purpose? That's nigger tier right there.
Productive to what?
My reason will almost always be different to your reason. How can somthing that divides us completely be a good absolute? It brings nothing but absolute division.
>kill yourself op
>>73358630
>Man IS not heroic. But he CAN/COULD be heroic
Deep, man. It's called an ideal.
>So you want an emotion, a chemical reaction in the brain, to be man's moral purpose? That's nigger tier right there.
No, I want man to seek their own happiness, in whatever form they find suitable, so long as it does not infringe on others.
>My reason will almost always be different to your reason.
Whatislogic.jpg
>>73358328
Because people are simply not as independent as objectivism believes them to be. No one but literal psychopaths have an attitude of "Fuck you, I'm getting mine" nor can people subsist on their own hard work.
If a society like Galt's Gulch were to exist in real life it would collapse, because no one would want to give up their nice white-collar jobs in favour of manual labour just on pure principle. And more importantly they wouldn't know what they were doing if they tried to go from professors of economics to farmers.
>>73358398
>>73358195
>shaming instead of giving an argument about objectivism.
OP is right, we are all scattered and divided on bullshit.
>>73358101
You going to OCON, op?
>>73358101
>Objectivism is a natural counter to SJW/Globalist/Multicultural agenda
You misspelled complement.
>>73358865
If it's an ideal then man is not automatically heroic. It is an ideal which he can possibly reach. Are you trying to prove yourself wrong?
Muh libertarian moral system. not even going to argue with this stick in the mud. I know I'm not capable of changing your mind.
>what is logic
Uhh I don't know, what is logic? Maybe the thing that is different for everyone. Not only is everyone's mind different, but everyone is in different positions. Do you honestly believe everyone thinks the same and will reach the same conclusions? Oh that's right of course you do because you're a libertarian.
>>73358195
I enjoyed your total lack of anything resembling an argument
>>73358882
>nor can people subsist on their own hard work
they need to use the hard work of others?
>>73358101
When I read this book I had very mixed feelings about it.
I felt like there were some extremely importantant ideas about purpose and objective good.
I also thought the writing was trash, and Rand ignores a lot of important philosophy like existentialism (which I believe actually reinforces objectivism). She also seems to largely ignore religion.
If it was 200 pages and really just hammered home her objectivism philosophy / ideology I would say it's one of the most important books ever written; unfortunately it's not very well written and feels incomplete.
>>73360090
No, they need to recognize that they need each other and to not spit on the poor for being less fortunate.
You need people to harvest your food, build your house, and make your clothes just as much as having someone to teach their kids how to read or design buildings or to write fiction about rugged individualists can make their lives easier. Life is very much a system of co-operation to make things go as smoothly as possible, it's not that much of a sacrifice to spend tax money on welfare to make your fellow man's life easier when you consider that having a stable and happy working class is vital to the success of a nation.
But of course Ayn Rand can't have that because economic security is literally communism and unfettered capitalism is the tits contrary to all empirical evidence.
>>73358101
It is a weak philosophy that combines multiple parts of better philosophical thought to justify a type of behavior. Her perception of reality is Reidian based, separation of form and object Aristotelian, her potential ideal of man is a weak form of ubermensch. She unnecessarily tries to give some all encompassing outlook she pretends to be unique when all she really wants to argue for is the morality and value of personal interest. Objectivitism is simply trying to make a framework where the wanted conclusion is inherently right using others work
>>73359811
Do I believe man is a heroic creature? Yes I do.
Are there non-heroic men? Obviously.
I like to believe the potential exists in all men, regardless of whether or not they exercise it.
>Uhh I don't know, what is logic? Maybe the thing that is different for everyone.
I'm going to leave this here for you to rethink.
> Do you honestly believe everyone thinks the same and will reach the same conclusions?
Well, considering there is more than one ideology on Earth, no. I'm proposing a guideline to follow, not implying that it is the natural state of mankind.
>>73361095
Just read nicomachean ethics dude. Rand cant even give a proper sense of what life should be lived beyond what she thinks the end purpose is, Aristotle provides means and end.
>>73360625
nobody is advocating spitting on the poor
welfare is a trap, and it's a form of slavery, to force some people to work for the benefit of others
harvesting food, building houses, making clothes are all productive tasks
> Life is very much a system of co-operation
yes, co-operation on a voluntary basis, not coercion
> it's not that much of a sacrifice to spend tax money on welfare
rand wasn't against charity, just INVOLUNTARY charity
how can you call them a working class if they are not working?
>>73360625
>contrary to all empirical evidence
oh come on now
name me a socialist state without a fucking huge defecit and debt, spending more that you earn, as a person, family or country, is not sustainable
we're all fucking broke!
>>73360595
I agree that the writing is pretty bad. I liked the first half, I think Rearden Metal was a nice example, the speech is cool. The second half and the action movie ending felt out of place.
I think that there are a lot of other ideologies that are compatible with Objectivism on at least a surface level. I think the most important parts of Objectivism are the belief in an objective reality and the emphasis on personal achievement.
Religion is not, though. Lack of proof, ya know?
>>73361036
Objectivism doesn't exist to justify a behavior. The behavior (the heroic man) is meant as the highest form of lifestyle that meshes with Objectivist thought.
To be honest, I don't adhere to the philosophy wholesale. If we could smash the belief in an objective reality together with the spirit of the ubermensch and call it something, I'd be down.
All species attempt to progress and develop. This could be seen as a point to existence. This makes an individual's own purpose to enable in any way, anything that progresses this concept. This concept of progression can be defined by scientific achievement, advancement of applicable technologies, and ration brought to the generally unsound view of human kind's relation to it's own existence.
Using these logical points, a conclusion can be made that humans are only now beginning to realize what sort of paths lie before us. One of the only courses that can be taken towards such an ideal of interplanetary dominion and things of the like, is a glottalization of the planet Earth that involves recognition of the advancement of humans as a species beyond all else. This is something very much outside our grasp, and in all likelihood, outside of our current perceptions.
Awareness is our most important struggle right now. We need not worry about details when we do not know what our target even is. We can only hope that we will approach this in the coming years, but a glance at the majority, and it provides a trepidations atmosphere.
>>73362638
*trepidatious, my finger slipped.
>>73361922
To quote Ludwig Von Mises' words to Ayn Rand
>"You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you."
Objectivism is not kind to poor people.
>welfare is a trap, and it's a form of slavery, to force some people to work for the benefit of others
Here is the folly of libertarianism. You may say that the social contract is reaping the fruits of others labour based on a social construct but if you're to follow such logic to the rational conclusion then so is private property.
The institution of private property allows the landed classes to simply take the produce of the working class based on nothing more than a state enforced idea. It has no objective basis, it is simply made up just as much as the social contract. If you're to abandon all spooks then you ought to be an anarchist as opposed to a statist or capitalist of any kind.
>harvesting food, building houses, making clothes are all productive tasks
Productive tasks that only pay half well or have any kind of safe conditions because of state regulation.
>yes, co-operation on a voluntary basis, not coercion
If you consider taxes to be coercion, as said earlier, private property is coercion by the same measure. The only way to justify it as anything more than an idea is to use force to stake your claim to it.
>rand wasn't against charity, just INVOLUNTARY charity
Most people are quite happy to pay taxes, the ones that don't move open off-shore bank accounts.
>how can you call them a working class if they are not working?
They are working, more people need welfare than chavs sitting around smoking dope all day.
Objectivism is the most autistic shit ever.
>people would go Galt
>the world would crumble
>>73362000
>Name a socialist state
There you go doing it again. Being against unfettered capitalism doesn't mean being a socialist.
Being in favour of regulations and spending isn't socialism, it's fucking orthodox economics.
>le atlas shrugged
You're funny op
>opposes sluts and degeneracy
>supports a philosophy that literally espouses self centered hedonism
Ayn Rand was a disgusting kike. I hope she's being raped in hell right now. Or not, she'd probably just enjoy it.
>>73362798
You're an early bird as I can see.
>>73362638
>>73362665
*globalization
The ideas run too strongly for me to slow down.
The reason I bring up these points is because globalization is almost always seen in a negative light, despite being something crucial to human advancement. To ignore this is flawed; but to also ignore the manner in which it occurs is even more of a mistake.
It is generally correct in all regards to question the way that globalization is currently occurring. But this does not mean it isn't a proper concept to regard. I completely understand nationalistic concepts, and find them almost innate to a part of me, as well as inherent to humans because of their experiences throughout history. I've never been one for the whole "love one another unconditionally" but the real point to be made is that if we cannot find a way to at least co-exist and share information, we cannot achieve the ideals that we wish for as a species.
>>73358101
SJW bullshit is at its heart and objectivist ideology.
What the fuck are you smoking OP?
>>73362798
you seem very good at dodging questions
it's a trifle dishonest
was it because you couldn't think of one?
>>73362682
>They are working, more people need welfare than chavs sitting around smoking dope all day.
if you reward a behaviour, you get more of it
>>rand wasn't against charity, just INVOLUNTARY charity
>Most people are quite happy to pay taxes, the ones that don't move open off-shore bank accounts.
that's not answering my question
>You may say that the social contract is reaping the fruits of others labour based on a social construct but if you're to follow such logic to the rational conclusion then so is private property.
not an answer to my point
>To quote Ludwig Von Mises'
who cares
>>73362077
But as I think you would admit the behavior is more important than the philosophy, the desire for a justification for self interest is clearly the basis of objectivism. So instead of trying to create a metaphysical or epidemiological framework, just admit that the self is where values stem from and the highest ideal of the self is creation of its own values. Calling them rationally based are formed on the framework of reality is an ideological weaknessn
Objectivism's problem stems from Aristotle. Man needs to be led like cattle because man isn't rational. You need an ubermensch to grab man by his scruff and drag him through the world.
>>73358101
Jew
>>73362994
No, it's because I'm not a socialist nor did I ever say socialism is a good thing.
You may as well turn around and go
>Oh yeah, well if Ayn Rand isn't right about everything then can you tell me what colour my shirt is? Checkmate, commies.
It's just totally irrelevant and a way of doing that classic libertarian tactic where you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a socialist.
It often comes to my mind the intentions of those leading the largest of financial funds / banks / political groups. Obviously, a simple goal to state would be control over the majority to profit their individual. This is foremost to the observer, and apparently disregarded by most as something expected.
Another that comes to mind is along the lines of what I've already mentioned; actual advancement. Genetic engineering and planetary colonization being at the pinnacle of my thought. For one moment each day I ponder the possibility that these are the intended goals of those spoken of. This brings the question of logistics.
There's essentially two paths that my mind conceives right off the bat when it thinks of this; a separation of mankind, involving the most elite becoming a genetically, medically, scientifically, and technologically more advance definition of human kind, then to spread among the stars as one might hope man might...and then there's the second path, which seems much more difficult. A path that involves slow and arduous, virtually impossible to enforce eugenics and birth policies that would mold the human race into an ideal, that could then approach the universe.
These thoughts occurred because I attempted to justify the global elite's end-game. The logic of it terrified and comforted me at the same time. Think of it what you will; because that's all I can provide. A perspective for you to discern your own from.
>>73363310
>It's just totally irrelevant and a way of doing that classic libertarian tactic where you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a socialist.
you seem to support involuntary redistribution of wealth
likewise you claim that I must be a libertarian in order to consider any of rands ideas interesting, and seem to imply that I must agree with every word out of her mouth
also, you haven't responded to this>>73363112
>>73363112
>if you reward a behaviour, you get more of it
You don't reward rent-seekers though. You could argue that rent-seekers can manipulate the system, and some do, but that's really rewarding them considering they're not making very much out of it.
>that's not answering my question
It wasn't a question, it was a statement that I presented a counter-argument to.
>not an answer to my point
But it is. To claim that taxes are force, but deny that wage-labour is force is just silly for the reasons presented.
>who cares
Flawless logic.
>>73358101
>What does /pol/ think of "Objectivist?"
Objectivism doesn't exist! Your thought patterns are based on your own experiences and education. Both are limited for everyone and shaped by preconceived notion, so you are never truly objective. Thats why sjws actually think that they are right.
Objectivists are Supremacy LARPers who pretend not to be influenced by their upbringing and information supply.
>>73362638
As a nationalist, I appreciate your well thought out defense of globalization. However I don't believe the human species will ever unify unless it faced extinction.
Also, I think we will be more likely to achieve great things when there exists competition between nations. If our species ever went full no-borders and everything didn't go to shit, and instead prospered like the hippies hope, then man would become complacent.
>>73363514
That's not socialism, socialism is the worker control of the means of production in a statist framework.
If you're not a libertarian I apologize. It's just that if someone both defends Ayn Rand and decides anyone in favour of any vaguely Social Democratic policies must be a socialist it's a safe bet to assume they're a libertarian.
>>73363563
>that I presented a counter-argument to.
I said rand wasn't against voluntary charity, and you countered by saying most people don't mind being forced to pay? surely you should have attacked my statement, perhaps implying it was wrong in some way
>To claim that taxes are force, but deny that wage-labour is force is just silly for the reasons presented.
you didn't imply I was wrong, just that if a is, then b is
>Flawless logic.
says the anon using the appeal to authority fallacy? kek
>>73363160
I got completely the opposite impression. Rand is pretty upfront about man's life (like, being alive) being the source of value, confines metaphysics to observable reality, and offers reason as it's epistemology.
>>73363662
I do not advocate any particular system, because the only real point I have to make is a recognition of steps to achieve a very specific height. I attempt to view the points regarded from all perspectives.
That being said, I actually completely agree that humans are not at the point where unification or even completely co-operation could occur.
Very often I regard the competition as a valuable aspect of advancement, but I view it in a similar regard as many things that have brought humans to their current point, such as inter-warring when it obviously fuels nothing but destruction when not spurred by proper catalysts. That being said, I don't disagree with wars as a concept, because very often there are those who do not want something that benefits most, or do not want to contribute to humans as a whole.
A concept of globalization is something that is outside our grasp, which is why I advocate awareness of paths as opposed to any specific reform. We have not yet made a system that is ideal for us and will likely not see one for many years to come, if ever.
>>73363714
>socialism is the worker control of the means of production in a statist framework
redistribution of wealth is generally a feature of socialist/lefty thought, it seems that way to me anyway. socialists think it's unfair that there is wealth inequality, or even any inequality. the only solution in their mind is to vote to steal others property
how would you describe your political stance? do you fit in a nice box?
I never said I wasn't a libertarian either. Can you like certain aspects without subscribing to the whole thing? I suppose I'd say I was an individualist, I think it's wrong to force people to do things, in general, although people who violate the non-aggression principle must be dealt with in some way
>>73363817
>I said rand wasn't against voluntary charity, and you countered by saying most people don't mind being forced to pay? surely you should have attacked my statement, perhaps implying it was wrong in some way
I cannot say your point is wrong because was true. Ayn Rand believed exactly that.
But the purpose of the counter-point is to illustrate that people who don't want to pay taxes, don't pay taxes. And if you really want to remain perfectly consistent with the law you could just move to the Cayman islands with your money.
>you didn't imply I was wrong, just that if a is, then b is
I was pointing out the inconsistency in your logic. What you said wasn't exactly untrue, it's just illogical to apply that view to the state but not to private entities.
>says the anon using the appeal to authority fallacy? kek
The point of the quote wasn't that it's true because Mises said it. The point was that it's true regardless, it just so happens Mises said it.
>>73363662
>>73363965
The competition of nations is still very valuable to us, since we have yet to achieve widespread recognition of this concept of ideal advancement. We won't even agree on what we want to progress towards for another thousand years at least. This is a very large scale view of humans, and such a view is something we only now can begin to approach.
For so long now, societies have been created, and collapsed. But we face a level of establishment within our own civilization that has yet to be precedented, or even conceptualized. Now that we are closer than ever to sustaining nations as large as we do, we can begin to think of these ideals, assuming we don't implode over the beginnings of transition. Which is most likely the case.
It's so easy to write off human advancement because it's seemingly stagnated already, but to say so is very flawed because of the long term that must be regarded.
But...then again...we do like to kill each other over what we see as progression (profit).
Alot.
>>73364059
The solution of inequality to socialists isn't to just take money from people's bank-accounts and redistribute it equally. The solution according to socialists is to abolish private property as they consider wage labour to be theft in the same sense that libertarians consider taxes to be theft. It's not stealing as far as socialists are concerned anymore than abolishing slavery is stealing.
If I were to describe my politics I'd say I'm mildly centre left.
What you're talking about is positivism and it's a huge failure.
>>73358865
You just described classical liberalism. My freedom ends where yours begins.
Classical liberalism is just about the antithesis of modern American "liberalism" and a much more effective cure since it uses their own """ values""" and """"""""""" ideals""""""""""" against them.
>>73364217
>I cannot say your point is wrong because was true. Ayn Rand believed exactly that.
>
>But the purpose of the counter-point is to illustrate that people who don't want to pay taxes, don't pay taxes. And if you really want to remain perfectly consistent with the law you could just move to the Cayman islands with your money.
part of the problem with giving the government the right to take your labor is they can decide to take any amount of it, and they can spend it on bullshit you don't agree with, such as foreign wars and importing trillions of shistkins to replace you, and vote for you to pay even more. How do you even know that most people are happy to pay their taxes?
>I was pointing out the inconsistency in your logic. What you said wasn't exactly untrue
inconsistent, but not untrue? interesting. I don't see maintaining private property to be a form of theft. could you explain further?
> The point was that it's true regardless, it just so happens Mises said it
we all have betters, and most of the inventions that helped raise our quality of life were by better men than us. what's wrong with that?
just like we owe a debt of gratitude to those who defended our lands in times of war
>>73364455
abolish private property, that seems insane, so the state owns everything? including you?
what do you think of White Genocide?
Ayn Rands theory of morality falls flat at its base point that good and evil boils down to pleasure and pain.
>>73364628
Interesting. Thanks for the tip.
>>73364806
Good and evil boil down to life and death, not pleasure and pain.
>>73364455
if there is no private property, does this apply to wages too? does everyone get paid the same?
if so, what incentive is there to work hard or to innovate or take risks?
>>73363965
>>73364301
You're correct to assume this will take a long time. Just take a look at NASA's budget...people aren't in favor of taking on ambitious plans that don't directly benefit them in some way. In the 1960's the push to reach the moon was basically just to beat the Soviets to it.
Most of the worries and pains of life will need to be taken care of before the general populace would be in favor of putting much R&D into space exploration or other grand plans.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Rand or her ideology, Atlas Shrugged is an objectively terrible novel.
>>73364973
Life is not always good and death is not always bad.
>>73365102
Very much so.
Also it's valuable to note that ocean colonization comes much before space; deep sea presents many similar problems for us to solve as deep space, and will help us gain insight to those issues with a bit more ease of access.
I could even see deep sea colonization become a thing before any proper level of globalization.
>>73358101
>"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
>not being stoic
>>73365302
People who don't value their life tend not to live too long.
>>73365148
>Atlas Shrugged is an objectively terrible novel.
I disagree
do you have any reasons, or just a claim?
>>73358101
Happiness is worthless as a value.
>>73364789
That's true, but that has much more to do with the inherent failings of parliamentary democracy as opposed to a problem with taxes themselves.
How do I know most people are happy to pay their taxes? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with them, but maybe outside of my area the rest of the UK are really secret ancaps.
>could you explain further?
Fundamentally it's the same logic as the social contract. Private property exists for the sole reason that people believe it does as well as the fact that the state enforces it.
The system of private property makes it so that people without private property must sell their labour as their only means to survive to those who do own private property in exchange for a wage to compensate them as opposed to the full produce of their labour. In turn they must use their wage to pay for rent to live in the private property of their landlord, and then buy the commodities that people like them produced to begin with. The only thing keeping this elaborate system of middle-men between producers and consumers afloat is the threat of state sanctioned force for those who violate property rights.
>what's wrong with that?
It's a matter of Kantian ethics.
By grading people as "inferior" or "superior" based on their social standing you're viewing them as means rather than ends in of themselves.
>so the state owns everything? including you?
Private property as used by socialists is short for the means of production, things that you can accumulate value from simply by owning. But not exactly, in theory it's a matter of no one owning such things but rather they simply are. Like how following the abolition of slavery no one could own another person.
I don't think there's a conscious effort to wipe out white people. But I do think there's a very active effort by people like George Soros to introduce huge amounts of immigrants to make the market for unskilled labour as competitive as possible in order to drive down wages.
>>73365679
That's not what I stated. I stated life and death are not always good or bad. One suffering from desease may view life as suffering and death as peace.
>>73365924
Disease*
>>73364991
It depends. There's a few ways of organizing this.
1. Yes, de facto the state taxes everything 100% and pays everyone a set wage.
2. The workers organize the distribution of resources themselves and can decide how much should be paid to each individual and how much should be spent on other matters. Possibly everyone could get the same wage
3. The workers simply keep all the produce for themselves, then sell it themselves. So everyone gets paid according to what they've produced and what the market offers for it. So by working longer/harder you can make more.
Innovation is desireable in every possible system however, capitalist or otherwise. It will make your job easier no matter how society is structured.
>>73365924
A suffering man wants to end his suffering. Do you want to base your morality on the model of a man under duress?
Even then, wouldn't a healthy continuation life be preferable to a speedy death?
>>73358101
Yeah, except libertarians don't really believe in the right for peoples to govern themselves since they don't really believe in governance in the first place.
How does one justify border control using libertarian philosophy?
How does one justify the preservation of local industry and culture?
>>73366124
No, but I want to point out how flawed objectivism is for basing its morality on life.
Life is suffering due to the fact that we exist without a purpose only to die.
>>73362994
You created a false dichotomy and then expected someone to play on your dishonest terms. So who is being dishonest here?
>>73366124
A suffering man does not necessarily want to end his suffering. It's wrong to say he always does.
>>73366393
Where's the false dichotomy?
>>73358630
One could be heroic following happiness if by happy you mean the concept of eudaimonia
>>73366404
This as well.
We can only truely learn by suffering. Those who are happy never learn a real lesson.
>>73366286
I don't think you have made your point. Your example does nothing but show that some people give up.
>>73358101
>"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
what makes this any different from Existentialism?
>>73366506
That's wrong too. Nothing about being happy necessarily prevents people from learning.
>>73365416
>any proper level of globalization.
wtf do you mean by this? you think there is a proper level of globalization?
>>73365821
>I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with them
aah, anecdotal evidence, I see
> Private property exists for the sole reason that people believe it does as well as the fact that the state enforces it.
it exists because it can be defended. we all have the natural right to defend ourselves and out property, even though in our useless country there are literally ZERO allowed self-defense weapons
so perhaps it's fairer to say that it no longer exists, the government owns everything, and we just have the usufruct
if you don't support private property, do you support government only property?
>By grading people as "inferior" or "superior" based on their social standing you're viewing them as means rather than ends in of themselves.
but surely you are objectively better than others at some things, and worse at others? are you uni educated? presumably you picked a subject you thought you were good at.
what do you want? a system where everyone is identical? everyone gets a first place medal?
>you're viewing them as means rather than ends in of themselves
not sure what you mean by this
>I don't think there's a conscious effort to wipe out white people. But I do think there's a very active effort by people like George Soros to introduce huge amounts of immigrants to make the market for unskilled labour as competitive as possible in order to drive down wages.
if it's not organized, why is it going on in all White countries? and only White countries?
the right likes low wages, the left get free voters that will vote socialist, the jews get to rule over a low-IQ deracinated populous with no cultural roots, and to destroy their chief rival/obstacle to world rule
>>73366404
Irrelevant. If he doesn't want to end his suffering, then he values life.
>>73366613
Happy people can be taught but cannot learn. Learning comes through suffering.
>>73366521
Giving up isn't morally good or bad. That's the point. It just is.
>>73358195
NOT AN ARGUMENT
>>73366868
Not true, value is an active idea. Life is just a state of being.
>>73366868
That's also not necessarily true. I could be commanded by God to suffer and value life at 0, but since I'm commanded to suffer and I value following God's commands infinitely, I'm not allowed to die even if I wanted to.
>>73358101
Objectivism is both morally and pragmatically incomprehensible. Its almost like it is a philosophy invented by a bad fiction author, to be embraced by self-interested libertarians who want to act as parasites on the public.
There are few more disgusting ideologies out there, and as far as I am concerned, it is pretty high on the "purge it with bullets and blades" list.
>>73366582
I had actually wondered the same myself, so I found this:
http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/objectivism-q-a/objectivism-q-a-blog/4297-existentialism-and-ayn-rand
>>73366098
1) sounds like full communism. which requires fear and tyranny to motivate workers
2) voting just pits different classes of workers against eachother, and the ones with the most members get to rule, even though they might not be the most useful to the production
3) the janitors, the designers, the accountants, the truck drivers, etc don't make any products themselves, but are still needed. also I presume there would be different products made
innovation might be desirable in some cases, but in others it can put people out of jobs
in all these scenarios, the people are still forced to work, which is what you were complaining about before
>>73366912
What can someone uniquely learn by suffering that one cannot learn while in a state of relative happiness? Especially given that someone can be happy and suffering simultaneously, since they're not mutually exclusive qualities.
>>73367070
I follow this with this hypothetical. Say you have a chicken, you value its life as a companion, but I do not value its life, it is something to be used, not valued.
>>73366393
I asked him to name a socialist state that wasn't heavily in debt
how was that a false dichotomy?
>>73366506
you some kind of moran buddhist faggot?
>>73367172
at least attempt to give some reasons you stupid faggot
>>73367242
are chickens popular as comapnions in canadia?
>>73367223
You cannot learn the depth of the human will from happiness. Only through suffering can you truely reach understanding of what a human is truely capable of when they have reached their lowest. You must reach the lowest point if you are ever going to understand what the need for power truely is. The need for power is the way of understanding the true will to power and the only way to make steps towards the overman. If one has not truely suffered one cannot know true peace and the way to peace.
>>73367292
Nope
>>73367552
Also no, but replace chicken with anything.
>>73366804
>it exists because it can be defended. we all have the natural right to defend ourselves and out property, even though in our useless country there are literally ZERO allowed self-defense weapons
This is the thing, it can still only be made manifest by force. Even defense by private entities within a statist framework is only accepted as legitimate because of the state approving such practices through law, and without a statist framework by praticing a monopoly of violence on their property they effectively become the state.
>if you don't support private property, do you support government only property?
I do support private property. I have yet to be sufficiently convinced that socialism can institute a bureaucracy smooth enough to maintain an economy without private property.
>but surely you are objectively better than others at some things, and worse at others? are you uni educated? presumably you picked a subject you thought you were good at.
Of course, but whilst everyone has different levels of ability they don't necessarily have greater or less value as human beings. Whilst I'm decent at what I do I wouldn't know how to do things like farm or build houses. Thus is the crux of society, everyone contributes according to their ability.
>what do you want? a system where everyone is identical? everyone gets a first place medal?
I'm quite content with capitalism, all I'm arguing for is a system with a decent level of social mobility and economic security.
>not sure what you mean by this
I'm essentially saying that humans ought not be viewed just according to their capacity to benefit you, but rather just as perfectly self-explanatory beings. Meaning you don't view someone as superior because they've created a great innovation, and someone else as inferior because they're a manual labourer. They're both simply men.
This is going to need 2 posts.
>>73367352
Do you waste your breath trying to conclusively bunk every stupid thing you come across? Ill invest the effort of linking the numerous arguments against Objectivism when it becomes something other than a masturbatory fantasy for libertarians who want to complain about paying taxes.
It is an irrelevant, broken ideology that had a flash in the pan moment that was mostly dominated by better thinkers like Hayek. I wont dignify it by treating it as something serious enough to warrant an intellectual critique.
If you want to learn about the arguments against it revealing its incoherency, just use your search bar. We live in the age of the internet, you dont need me to copy/paste for you.
>>73367679
>>73366804
>if it's not organized, why is it going on in all White countries? and only White countries?
It happens in every industrialized country. Arab oil-states are absolutely loaded with immigrants, and the only reason China doesn't have an immigrant percentage comprable to Europe is because there are simply to many Chinese people for any amount of immigrants to make a dent in the population.
>the right likes low wages, the left get free voters that will vote socialist, the jews get to rule over a low-IQ deracinated populous with no cultural roots, and to destroy their chief rival/obstacle to world rule
The Jews don't need race-mixing to run the white world. They already run the white world with absolutely no resistance.
>>73367619
so you are simply stating the obvious, that value is subjective?
you sound a bit new agey
do you deliberately cause yourself to suffer?
>>73367560
Sounds like assertions.
1) You cannot learn the depth of human will (whatever you qualify that as) from happiness
I take it you mean 'a state in which you are happy' when you say happiness.
2) If one has not truly (however you qualify this) suffered one cannot know true (again unqualified) peace
You need to qualify terms for your statements to amount to overly ambiguous hand-waving.
>>73367837
amount to anything other than*
>>73366967
There is no morality in a vacuum. If you don't have anything to value, then yeah, it means nothing.
>>73367145
So he values his life by proxy.
Anyways, I'm off to bed. Thanks, everyone.
I do sympathize with the overall message of Objectivism and it's Aristotelian roots.
I just don't think it's feasible to create a society like it.
>>73358101
>reason as his only absolute."
Read Dostoevsky, seriously.
What makes you think that reason cannot corrupt?
>>73367208
1. That's because it basically is. But even cases as drastic as the USSR didn't depend on fear and tyranny to motivate workers, workers will work anyway just to get paid. Not to mention they weren't particularly motivated given the prevalance of people turning up to work steaming drunk.
2. As a matter of fact that mode of organization is what co-ops do and thus far it seems to function perfectly well.
3. There is the thing, other people would pay them for their services. People would still need janitors to keep their workplaces clean. People would still need to contract designers and accountants. And in a system where people are constantly selling goods and buying the resources to make more truck-drivers would be absolutely crucial.
>innovation might be desirable in some cases, but in others it can put people out of jobs
That's true, but that has never stopped it from happening.
>in all these scenarios, the people are still forced to work, which is what you were complaining about before
I wasn't. I was mentioning how those without property must sell their labour to those with property in exchange for a wage - in the mentioned scenarios (with the exception of the first one) people control the entirety of what they've produced rather than getting a wage in exchange for it.
>>73367829
No, I didn't originally cause myself to suffer and I don't anymore.
>>73367837
Human will is the mental force you have.
True suffering is what Nietzsche describes as staring into the abyss, peace is ultimately understand the true reality that life will eventually end and suffering will no longer be possible. Overcoming the abyss is learning how to no longer suffer, even in pain. Its the idea of asserting mental will over ones self so pain is no longer felt, an idea of this is when monks can hold burning coals in their hands without dropping them.
>>73367679
>This is the thing, it can still only be made manifest by force.
yes, force and threat of force
I'm not sure if I follow you when you say that holding a monopoly on violence in e.g. your house you become the state
> I have yet to be sufficiently convinced that socialism can institute a bureaucracy smooth enough to maintain an economy without private property.
so in what way are you left?
> they don't necessarily have greater or less value as human beings
yes, they do. a doctor is much more valuable than a janitor, as almost anyone can do the janitors job, but not the doctors
>I'm quite content with capitalism, all I'm arguing for is a system with a decent level of social mobility and economic security.
you seem to have absorbed some cutural marxist values, for instance, when you say everyone is equally important, even though that's not objectively true
>Meaning you don't view someone as superior because they've created a great innovation, and someone else as inferior because they're a manual labourer. They're both simply men
so the man who invented the cure for smallpox is only as important as a tramp? come on now
>>73367760
if you can't back your claim up, then consider it dismissed
>>73367813
>It happens in every industrialized country. Arab oil-states are absolutely loaded with immigrants
and are they citizens? do they have voting rights? can they be elected as politicians? no
what do you think of the kalergi plan as outlined in his book, and the prize given every 2 years to those who have helped the criminal plan? including merkel, the friend of the rapists
>The Jews don't need race-mixing to run the white world. They already run the white world with absolutely no resistance
they always over reach. they hate us, and consider us only put here to serve them
>>73368042
>I just don't think it's feasible to create a society like it.
all it would take would be the abolition of crony corrupt dealiongs in government, and forced charity
>>73368276
I should state that I learned this from successfully killing myself before being revived
>>73368062
What Dostoevsky story are you referencing? Crime and Punishment?
>>73368153
>even cases as drastic as the USSR didn't depend on fear and tyranny to motivate workers, workers will work anyway just to get paid
were they paid the same for doing 70% effort as 100% effort?
>that mode of organization is what co-ops do and thus far it seems to function perfectly well.
any famous co-ops that I haven't heard of? ones that produce goods I would want to buy? cheaper than from the big corps
>There is the thing, other people would pay them for their services. People would still need janitors to keep their workplaces clean. People would still need to contract designers and accountants. And in a system where people are constantly selling goods and buying the resources to make more truck-drivers would be absolutely crucial.
so it sounds a bit like normal capitalism, but everyone would be a contractor
>That's true, but that has never stopped it from happening.
Britain banned the motor car for several years because of all the jobs in the horse industry
>I wasn't. I was mentioning how those without property must sell their labour to those with property in exchange for a wage - in the mentioned scenarios (with the exception of the first one) people control the entirety of what they've produced rather than getting a wage in exchange for it.
I don't see the distinction, they are still forced to work in order to live
>>73368455
Notes from the underground
>>73368387
>all it would take would be the abolition of crony corrupt dealiongs in government, and forced charity
Which would never happen.
Objectivism is new packaging on old philosophy. It's better to just say you are an Aristotelean and agree with "Virtue Ethics" than to appear like an edgy teenager who's a fan of Ayn Rand.
>>73369197
america was libertarian from 1776 to 1933
why is it impossible to reverse cronyism and ever increasing welfare? at the very least, it will stop when the currency collapses(the welfare at least)
>>73368387
>I'm not sure if I follow you when you say that holding a monopoly on violence in e.g. your house you become the state
Ask yourself, what makes the state the state? Their ability to enforce the law. The state hold their power by being the arbiters of what force is acceptable, and using the police and the army to make the law manifest.
In the absence of a state in say an anarcho-capitalist society where private property rights are intact the owners of property become a state in themselves as they go on to hold the monopoly of violence on their property.
>what way are you lef
I support social democratic programs, as I said I'm only mildly left wing.
>yes, they do. a doctor is much more valuable than a janitor, as almost anyone can do the janitors job, but not the doctors
This is the thing. You're viewing them as means, a doctor can save your life, a janitor can make your workplace clean, clearly one has more use than another. I'm saying that both shouldn't be viewed as means but rather as ends in themselves, and thus be respected as humans for their very existence.
>you seem to have absorbed some cutural marxist values, for instance, when you say everyone is equally important, even though that's not objectively true
Grading people based on importance is exactly what I'm arguing against, whether you view them as equally important or as superior and inferior. I'm saying that everyone should be equally respected.
>so the man who invented the cure for smallpox is only as important as a tramp? come on now
Once again importance is irrelevant.
This will also need 2 posts.
>>73369517
>america was libertarian from 1776 to 1933
No it wasn't.
>>73358101
>man as a heroic being
Good luck with that
>>73369551
>>73368387
>and are they citizens? do they have voting rights? can they be elected as politicians? no
First generation immigrants aren't instantly citizens in Europe either. They must go through varyingly rigorous measures of naturalization.
>what do you think of the kalergi plan as outlined in his book, and the prize given every 2 years to those who have helped the criminal plan? including merkel, the friend of the rapists
I think that if one thing can be said for socialism it greatly undermines the ruling elite's attempts to treat poorer people like literal livestock. For instance the USSR's natural growth was astronomical until virtually the moment it ended when all of a sudden it plateud and slowly declined like in every other industrialized capitalist nation.
If the world has elite ranchers and impoverished livestock, then it's very clear that perhaps Marx was more correct than /pol/ gives him credit for.
>>73369261
I never read any Aristotle, but I did read an article claiming that he ruined philosophy by insisting that the less useful an idea was, the more effort should be spent thinking about it
is there any truth to this?
>>73369517
No it wasn't. It was a representative Republic and still is.
>>73369551
>Ask yourself, what makes the state the state? Their ability to enforce the law. The state hold their power by being the arbiters of what force is acceptable, and using the police and the army to make the law manifest.
the state can also break all its own rules
are there any other competing definitions of what makes a state a state? I suppose it's another way of talking about sovereignity
>In the absence of a state in say an anarcho-capitalist society where private property rights are intact the owners of property become a state in themselves as they go on to hold the monopoly of violence on their property.
presumably another group could challenge this monopoly
>I support social democratic programs
I don't understand what people mean by that. could you give some examples?
>I'm saying that both shouldn't be viewed as means but rather as ends in themselves, and thus be respected as humans for their very existence.
can I respect them as individuals whilst appreciating that one is more important or useful?
>I'm saying that everyone should be equally respected.
I would have to disagree, as I feel respect has to be earned
>Once again importance is irrelevant.
I don't understand how you can make this statement. if we lost all the janitors in a freak janitor disaster, we'd have to sweep our own floors, if we lost all the doctors it would severely reduce our quality of life and life expectancy. doctors ARE more important to us, and to society
did you ever read the hitchikers guide to the galaxy?
>>73369571
I believe it was, or at least as close as it is possible to get. can you give some reasons as to why it wasn't libertarian?
>>73369601
>They must go through varyingly rigorous measures of naturalization.
yeah, 5 years or something, so what? in arab countries they never become citizens. not to mention that the quran/hadiths specify that certain groups are more important, like 5 classes
>>73368978
>were they paid the same for doing 70% effort as 100% effort?
As far as I know yes.
>any famous co-ops that I haven't heard of? ones that produce goods I would want to buy? cheaper than from the big corps
By nature a capitalist mode of production will always be more competitive as it is run with the ambition of making the largest profits possible as opposed to the most equitable pay for their workers.
Whilst they function well, they couldn't seriously compete with large corporations for that reason.
>Britain banned the motor car for several years because of all the jobs in the horse industry
Instances like this are one of the cases where a planned economy would be better able to deal with it than a capitalist one. Since everyone is supported by the state it would be much easier for them to retrain. Additionally the state would be able to open factories for the new innovation and phase out the horse industry proportionately rather than letting the free market plunge everyone's job into chaos.
>I don't see the distinction, they are still forced to work in order to live
Of course because nature is what forces them to work to live. But it's men that exploit this natural weakness for profit and that's the problem here.
>>73370156
>I believe it was, or at least as close as it is possible to get. can you give some reasons as to why it wasn't libertarian?
Because libertarianism would mean essentially minarchism, a night-watchman state, with a laissez-faire economy, which America has never had.
America had a system that was essentially the opposite of free trade and free market economics for most of it's history, and the idea that America should "go back" to the era where it was a free market is just a 40 year old meme from Reagan's presidency.
Here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29
>>73369601
>I think that if one thing can be said for socialism it greatly undermines the ruling elite's attempts to treat poorer people like literal livestock. For instance the USSR's natural growth was astronomical until virtually the moment it ended when all of a sudden it plateud and slowly declined like in every other industrialized capitalist nation.
you really believe there are no classes in socialist countries? did the ruling party ever go hungry? or did they dine on champagne and caviar even while 60 million were starving to death? did the ruling party live in hovels or the best apartments?
even the person serving the stew could favor their friends by giving a spoonful from the bottom where the meat was, rather than just broth from the top
>If the world has elite ranchers and impoverished livestock, then it's very clear that perhaps Marx was more correct than /pol/ gives him credit for.
this is a feature of socialism, masses of poor and a ruling elite that live like kings.
when they say they want to redistribute the wealth, they don't mean THEIR wealth
did you know that Marx never had a job? and lived off the generosity of others? a bit like how sanders never had a job till he was elected at age 41
and your pic regarding the population, at what point were the 60 million starved/murdered?
what do you think of my pic?
>>73358101
Trump seems like an Objectivism hero.
>>73369657
could you define libertarianism?
>>73370156
Of course it can, that's what makes it the monopoly of violence. Since it's the only authority on what violence is and isn't justified it can make it so that any violence it commits is always justified.
I'm not sure if there's any more competing definitions. But I've always found the monopoly of violence to be perfectly compelling.
>presumably another group could challenge this monopoly
Absolutely, which is why an anarcho-capitalist society wouldn't be very stable.
>I don't understand what people mean by that. could you give some examples?
I mean things like free healthcare, education, welfare and guaranteed housing.
>can I respect them as individuals whilst appreciating that one is more important or useful?
You could, but why would you want to grade people based on their usefulness?
>I would have to disagree, as I feel respect has to be earned
I would say that respect comes naturally. You simply treat respect even if you've just met them, it's only by later actions that you start to lose respect.
>I don't understand how you can make this statement.
Because you shouldn't be viewing them as doctors and janitors. You should be viewing them as say, Bill and Dave.
>yeah, 5 years or something, so what? in arab countries they never become citizens. not to mention that the quran/hadiths specify that certain groups are more important, like 5 classes
That's true.
>>73370453
>dah 60 gorillion
Party members got to enjoy reasonably upper-middle class lifestyles.
Everyone else got to enjoy less comfortable, but still decent lives.
It's not like in say, capitalist British occupied India where the colonial elite were literal royalty despite the fact that massive famines happened regularly. Whereas in the near 100 years the USSR existed there were no famines after Stalin.
But of course when famines happen in socialist countries it's murder, when they happen in capitalist countries it's a natural disaster. Because the deaths get privatized along with the resources.
When talking of how the party lived like kings when the people were starving it's extremely rich coming from fellow British people. When we actually have people who are indeed royalty, yet we still have homeless people. Two things the USSR didn't have.
>did you know that Marx never had a job? and lived off the generosity of others?
You do realize Marx was a professional journalist?
>what do you think of my pic?
It looks quite alarming.
>>73370172
so capitalism beats co-ops, presumably it is more efficient
and you seem to hate profit. do you see wealth/profit as a zero sum game? or can wealth be created?
>>73370398
I will look into this, but the three things at the top of the page (supporting industries, creating infrastructure, both physical and financial) don't seem to impact personal freedom
>>73370462
I suppose he almost is
>>73370755
>I mean things like free healthcare, education, welfare and guaranteed housing.
aah, what we call "gibs", and others call the nanny state
funny how you use the word free, as if it just magically appears, with no one having to pay for it. whats wrong with people buying those things themselves based on what they can afford and what they need? why is the government better at spending our money that we are? aren't bureaucracies inefficient?
>why would you want to grade people based on their usefulness?
so I know who to save in a SHTF situation? anyway, people are ALREADY graded on their usefulness, by the market, according to their pay
>I would say that respect comes naturally. You simply treat respect even if you've just met them, it's only by later actions that you start to lose respect.
you respect murderers? pedos? right wingers? politicians in general? religious nuts?
>You should be viewing them as say, Bill and Dave.
when you say "should" do you mean "it is morally correct for you to"? are you attempting to force your morality on me?
>>73358488
>National SOCIALISM
>Objectivism (LIBERTARIANISM)
pls gtfo
Nazi niggers are low tier faggots who think they're special snowflakes, don't even compare these niggers to Objectivists.
>>73371295
>Party members got to enjoy reasonably upper-middle class lifestyles.
>Everyone else got to enjoy less comfortable, but still decent lives.
you seem to be admitting my point that there were separate classes within the so-called classless utopia
>Whereas in the near 100 years the USSR existed there were no famines after Stalin.
Stalin ruled from 1922-52
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union
>The first famine in the USSR happened in 1921–1923 and garnered wide international attention
>The second Soviet famine happened during the collectivization in the Soviet Union, and critics of communism claim was artificially created to deal with Ukrainian resistance to Soviet occupant regime, saying it was an act of genocide. In 1932–33 confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities[1] contributed to the famine which affected more than forty million people,
>The last major famine in the USSR happened mainly in 1947 as a cumulative effect of consequences of collectivization, war damage, the severe drought in 1946 in over 50% of the grain-productive zone of the country and government social policy and mismanagement of grain reserves
> it's extremely rich coming from fellow British people
aah, the old appeal to hypocrisy? that's a fallacy my good sir
>You do realize Marx was a professional journalist?
I didn't and withdraw that
>It looks quite alarming.
did you notice how from 1776 to about 1933 inflation happened a little but was always reversed, but after that it has only ever gone up? and todays economists lie to us and claim a little inflation is healthy? (obviously you know about interest compounding, so 2% compound is much much more than 2% simple)
anyway, you did seem to concede that there were different classes in the USSR, even though the supposed aim of communism was to make everyone equal. I say supposed because I believe it was designed to make a new ruling class
>>73371525
>and you seem to hate profit. do you see wealth/profit as a zero sum game? or can wealth be created?
I don't particularly. As I said earlier capitalism isn't so bad.
>funny how you use the word free, as if it just magically appears, with no one having to pay for it. whats wrong with people buying those things themselves based on what they can afford and what they need? why is the government better at spending our money that we are? aren't bureaucracies inefficient?
Because many people cannot afford it. And if taxes can prevent someone from going hungry, or being homeless, or dying because they can't afford heathcare then the government should see to it that that is the case. Likewise education is absolutely invaluable to social mobility, and if a capitalist society can truly claim to be one where lower-class people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and advance their position in life then you simply cannot deny someone access to education based on whether or not they can afford it.
>so I know who to save in a SHTF situation? anyway, people are ALREADY graded on their usefulness, by the market, according to their pay
The fact that they get paid more doesn't make them superior beings. If that was the case then David Cameron would be a good guy.
>you respect murderers? pedos? right wingers? politicians in general? religious nuts?
No, because as said it's actions that make you respect them less. If I met someone I would treat them with respect, if they later turned out to be a pedo then maybe not.
>when you say "should" do you mean "it is morally correct for you to"? are you attempting to force your morality on me?
No, I'm explaining my views on ethics and why I disagree with Ayn Rand. You don't have to agree with me.
>>73371295
>Whereas in the near 100 years the USSR existed there were no famines after Stalin
oh, I appear to have read that wrong, heh
so stalin was responsible for some of the famines?
still better than natsoc
>socialism is a jewish construct designed to gradually rule the world...it appeals to the masses of people who succumb to their jealousy and envy of people with greater talents and ability than their own....therefore they find pleasure in the elites downfall....they are too stupid to realize how this tall poppy syndrome they perpetuate stifles their own ambitions.
>>73372302
>>and you seem to hate profit. do you see wealth/profit as a zero sum game? or can wealth be created?
>I don't particularly. As I said earlier capitalism isn't so bad.
is wealth a zero sum game? or can it be created?
>>73372381
>Rosenbaum
>Rothbard
>Friedman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussentum_und_Sozialismus
>>73372302
>Because many people cannot afford it. And if taxes can prevent someone from going hungry, or being homeless, or dying because they can't afford heathcare then the government should see to it that that is the case. Likewise education is absolutely invaluable to social mobility, and if a capitalist society can truly claim to be one where lower-class people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and advance their position in life then you simply cannot deny someone access to education based on whether or not they can afford it.
if they can't afford it. what right do they have to force me to work in order to provide it for them?
why can these things not be provided through voluntary charity?
also, what do you think about very expensive medicines and procedures? e.g. there is supposed to be a blood therapy that the rich can get for $30k a time, where they completely replace their blood with that of a donor(just a rumor), supposing that is true, should it be available to everyone? what happens when the amount of medical expenses outstrips the amount of money generated by a country?
>If that was the case then David Cameron would be a good guy.
not good, valuable. and he is, just like tony B Liar, having connections to influential people is valuable, influence is a commodity. This was something Rand was against, and I agree
>>73372076
>you seem to be admitting my point that there were separate classes within the so-called classless utopia
That depends. Classes in the Marxist sense? Not exactly. Classes in our modern capitalist sense? You could make a case for that, but the difference between say middle and lower class is much more fluid than the difference between bourgeois and proletariat. Especially with education and state support allowing for a great deal of social mobility.
>Stalin ruled from 1922-52
My point is Stalin was absolutely insane and this is reflected in how his rule was absolutely plagued with famines.The fact that he ruled for so long is yet another reflection of how he wielded power with an iron fist.
>aah, the old appeal to hypocrisy? that's a fallacy my good sir
It was more of an aside than a point in of itself. You're not exactly wrong to call it a flawed argument.
>I say supposed because I believe it was designed to make a new ruling class
The USSR was particularly good. But one thing that deserves to be said is the party members of the USSR were a very different breed of ruling class than the bourgeois of capitalist countries.
I mean it was possible to join the party in your youth if you displayed a proper apptitude, if you display a particular loyalty to the teachings of Adam Smith no one in the capitalist world gives you a gold mine in Africa and invites you to join the 1%.
>>73372489
Wealth can be created, but the system of private property makes it very arduous to do so independently.
The only kind of wealth than can be produced ex nihilo is intellectual property.
>>73373049
>Wealth can be created, but the system of private property makes it very arduous to do so independently.
what incentive is there to create wealth if you do not own the wealth created?
I disagree that it's private property that makes it arduous, I think it is over regulation which creates barriers to market entry. economies of scale don't help either, I used to make PCs for people, and stopped when I found out Dell could make a full PC for less than I could buy the parts. how would socialism solve this? and over regulation too
One of the best books I've ever read is called "starving the monkeys" , it taught me that wealth/profit is created by increasing quality of life, or removing sources of negative qol.
intellectual property? like books or music? and inventions of course
>>73372816
>if they can't afford it. what right do they have to force me to work in order to provide it for them?
Taxes are the rent you pay for living on their property, the UK.
Why can they not be done through charity? If they could be provided through charity they already would be, evidently this isn't something people are particularly good at without state intervention.
>also, what do you think about very expensive medicines and procedures? e.g. there is supposed to be a blood therapy that the rich can get for $30k a time, where they completely replace their blood with that of a donor(just a rumor), supposing that is true, should it be available to everyone? what happens when the amount of medical expenses outstrips the amount of money generated by a country?
Well the state ought to provide them to those who need them. Thus far it seems like that isn't going to happen with the NHS.
Although it must be said the NHS can stand to cut spending on a lot of things.
>>73358630
Happiness the same as feels good chems? That's the real nigger tier
>>73363412
You seem to miss the fact that if genetic engineering becomes possible, it might as well be available to all.
Not for people to pick and choose, mind you. We don't want our next door neighbors going full Frankenstein at their leisure, nor do we want people making irreversible decisions like sex change operations too easily.
That being said, why wouldn't a benevolent elite want to bring humanity (close) to their level at no additional cost? It would ultimately benefit all if not for shortcomings in their motivations.
>>73372844
>That depends. Classes in the Marxist sense? Not exactly. Classes in our modern capitalist sense? You could make a case for that
either way, everyone in a socialist society is NOT equal, despite the pretense that they will be
it's very foundation is a lie
don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with capitalism too, but I don't think socialism is the answer
>the party members of the USSR were a very different breed of ruling class than the bourgeois of capitalist countries
yes, they were over 75% jewish, at least in the initial decades
> it was possible to join the party in your youth if you displayed a proper apptitude, if you display a particular loyalty to the teachings of Adam Smith no one in the capitalist world gives you a gold mine in Africa and invites you to join the 1%.
oy vey, so anti semitic, 43% of the 1% are jewish you antisemite bigot racist evildoer!!
just because you can join the only party doesn't make it a fair system. proper capitalism should be based on value created, how useful you are to the country
>>73373406
>Taxes are the rent you pay for living on their property, the UK.
that's not answering my question. I asked about what right they have to force me to work for them. they being the people to poor to afford the things they want themselves
>If they could be provided through charity they already would be, evidently this isn't something people are particularly good at without state intervention.
they used to be provided by charity, until the government realized it could take over that area and grow its power
do you think schools are there to teach useful facts? or are they there to get kids indoctrinated into the system? why should a child have to ask to go to the bathroom? what right does one human have to deny another the right to have a shit? no, it's all about control. Can you believe that they have the gall to demand you work for them for nothing, even during your leisure time? fucking faggots
>>73373406
>Well the state ought to provide them to those who need them. Thus far it seems like that isn't going to happen with the NHS.
from each according to his ability? to each according to their need?
seems like the strong, clever and innovative are enslaved to the needy and weak
>>73373778
>why wouldn't a benevolent elite want to bring humanity (close) to their level
because they hate competition, they want to maintain their status and position
>>73373402
>what incentive is there to create wealth if you do not own the wealth created?
In cases like the USSR intellectual property was protected and you got paid for it.
But cases like opening businesses? It would simply be obselete as the state plans the economy. It does not need an incentive.
> how would socialism solve this? and over regulation too
I can see where economy of scale is a problem, but I'm not sure how over-regulation comes into it?
I don't think socialism could really solve the problem with competing with a large-scale industry, but it could make it easier to access the industry itself.
>>73373880
>either way, everyone in a socialist society is NOT equal, despite the pretense that they will be
In the Marxist sense they kind of are.
>yes, they were over 75% jewish, at least in the initial decades
That's not very surprising. In the early 20th century British labour movement Irish people were disproportionately represented, or in the Spanish civil war Catalonia was a hotbed of leftist activity because communism is extremely appealing to disenfranchised minorities. Jews, also being very well educated would quickly gain prominence in places with large Jewish minorities.
>just because you can join the only party doesn't make it a fair system. proper capitalism should be based on value created, how useful you are to the country
1. It kind of does. Since everyone has an opportunity to join the party it's much fairer than capitalism where the chances of someone going from working class to full-blown bourgeoisie are absolutely miniscule.
2. Capitalism by it's very nature will always be based on the capital owned rather than personal contributions.
>that's not answering my question. I asked about what right they have to force me to work for them. they being the people to poor to afford the things they want themselves
By the same measure what right does your landlord have to force you to work for him?
>they used to be provided by charity, until the government realized it could take over that area and grow its power
Yes and before universal education and healthcare illiteracy was through the roof whilst life-expectancy was through the floor.
It wasn't a very good time to be alive.
>>73374049
>seems like the strong, clever and innovative are enslaved to the needy and weak
If you think Atlas Shrugged is a documentary then I can see why.
>>73374093
>In cases like the USSR intellectual property was protected and you got paid for it.
paid for it with an extra ration of gruel? or a slightly better hovel? or an actual pay increase?
but did you get a royalty on every product produced? and even if you did, was it negotiated by offering it to the highest bidder, or was there only one bidder, and a take it or leave it offer, where the leave it option was a bullet?
>the state plans the economy. It does not need an incentive.
how does the state know the needs of the people better than the people themselves?
are the people running the state omniscient?
> I'm not sure how over-regulation comes into it?
imagine a logging company. to start one you would need a chainsaw and some land with trees, and a contract with a haulier
now imagine that the established big loggers want to keep out the little guys, how could they do it? well one way would be to lobby for safety standards and certifications, enviromental impact statements, insurances and other things of that nature. these are all easily born by established big firms, but the little guy can't afford them
>I don't think socialism could really solve the problem with competing with a large-scale industry, but it could make it easier to access the industry itself.
I don't think socialism can solve any problems, at least long term. it just puts burdens on the productive whilst transferring their efforts to the needy, and this is my problem with it. There will always be more needs, and the productive will get sick of working hard for other people
The purpose of mankind is expansion
Of its territory, of its means, of its lifespan.
>>73374522
>In the Marxist sense they kind of are.
as opposed to reality? I don't even know what you mean by "in the marxist sense"
>That's not very surprising. In the early 20th century British labour movement Irish people were disproportionately represented, or in the Spanish civil war Catalonia was a hotbed of leftist activity because communism is extremely appealing to disenfranchised minorities. Jews, also being very well educated would quickly gain prominence in places with large Jewish minorities.
it's not very surprising because communism is a jewish movement, marx himself being descended of not just jews, but rabbis
>It kind of does. Since everyone has an opportunity to join the party it's much fairer than capitalism where the chances of someone going from working class to full-blown bourgeoisie are absolutely miniscule.
I don't get it, is socialism/communism classless, or is there class mobility? and why should knowing das kapital the best give you a seat at the ruling table? it's like some kind of bizarre priesthood of equality but some being more equal. there is far more class mobility in genuine capitalism than socialism, because you get to keep what you earn, rather than praying to marx the best, your earnings are the value that you have provided, can't get fairer than that.
>By the same measure what right does your landlord have to force you to work for him?
answering a question with a question? would you really do that? should I raise another question or repeat the initial question? suffice it to say, you have not answered what right they have to force me to work for them(WAAA BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEEDS) well I need a new ferrari, so give me all your fucking money, no I don't have to compensate you by improving your qol by the same amount, how would THAT be fair?
>Yes and before universal education and healthcare illiteracy
you didn't comment about being forced to ask to go to the bathroom
>>73374674
>paid for it with an extra ration of gruel? or a slightly better hovel? or an actual pay increase?
You got paid royalties.
>but did you get a royalty on every product produced? and even if you did, was it negotiated by offering it to the highest bidder, or was there only one bidder, and a take it or leave it offer, where the leave it option was a bullet?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say?
You got paid royalties the same way you get paid royalties here.
>how does the state know the needs of the people better than the people themselves?
Because the state too is made up of people who also live in the community. I don't get why you can accept that a would-be businessman could notice the needs of the community, but a local party member couldn't.
>now imagine that the established big loggers want to keep out the little guys, how could they do it? well one way would be to lobby for safety standards and certifications, enviromental impact statements, insurances and other things of that nature. these are all easily born by established big firms, but the little guy can't afford them
On the contrary big businesses move to countries with more relaxed regulations precisely to get away from them so that they can make more money.
I'm not particularly sad that you don't have to worry about dying at work anymore, or getting lung cancer just from walking down the street even if it comes at the expense of budding entrepeneurs. No, socialism is very pro-all those regulations.
>and this is my problem with it. There will always be more needs, and the productive will get sick of working hard for other people~
The thing about socialism is it takes a very different view on what it means to be productive. The working class are seen as the bedrock of society and thus the most productive, the bourgeosie are seen as parasites that live off everyone else's labour.
I suppose you could say it's the exact opposite of Ayn Rand.
>>73374643
documentaries are films where they lie to you. seen charlie brooker? he might be a race-mixing turbo lefty cunt, but I did enjoy his commentaryu on bruce fucking parry arriving to the first meeting with a tribe of amazons... AND BEING FILMED APPROACHING!!
fucking liers
have you read atlas shrugged? I won't lie, some of it is fucking longwinded as fuck, and some of it is a bit boring, but it was an absolute fucking revelation to me. It could have been set TODAY! how the fuck can a fifty year old book be so fucking accurate at skewering what is wrong with society today?
and, it's REALLY fucking funny too, and a bit depressing
I don't agree with everything rand said, but atlas shrugged is fucking amazing, despite its flaws
>>73375103
In the Marxist view at present there are 2 classes.
The bourgeosie
The proletariat
Even in the USSR the bourgeoisie didn't really exist in any traditional sense.
>is socialism/communism classless, or is there class mobility? and why should knowing das kapital the best give you a seat at the ruling table?
1. Communism is classless. Socialism by virtue of being statist can be murky.
2. For the exact same reason that knowing the Constitution should be recognized as a plus in the US government. I don't get the issue on that one.
> is far more class mobility in genuine capitalism than socialism, because you get to keep what you earn,
>you get to keep what you earn.
That's not capitalism. In capitalism you give what you've produced to whoever owns the property and get a wage instead.
But of course the caveat "genuine" means that you have some infallible untried vision of capitalism in mine.
>answering a question with a question? would you really do that?
I answered it the first time around by saying you live on the government's property. But you didn't accept that as a real answer. So I posed the question why you can't accept paying taxes to live on government property but are content to pay rent to live in private property?
Given how you evidently don't accept the logic of having to pay to live on property you must have an answer that will make sense of this.
>you didn't comment about being forced to ask to go to the bathroom
They make you do that in public school as well. And as far as I know always have.
>>73375255
>I'm not sure what you're trying to say?
>
>You got paid royalties the same way you get paid royalties here.
what, you took your product to dozens of firms and got a list of offers, then chose the best offer?
oh come on, you got one offer, and no chance to decline
> I don't get why you can accept that a would-be businessman could notice the needs of the community, but a local party member couldn't.
if everything is planned by one body, this is much less efficient than hundreds of entrepreneurs searching for ways of better satisfying peoples needs at a cheaper price, or with a better product.
are you working? if so, how many productive meetings have you had? ALL of mine have been boring useless wastes of time where people attempt to justify their salaries and hyp up meaningless boring bullshit "achievements". a complete waste of time. and socialism is ALL about committees and fucking meetings
the members of the ruling party don't live in the same society as the normal people, they are insulated. much like our pols today
>On the contrary big businesses move to countries with more relaxed regulations precisely to get away from them so that they can make more money.
there is an element of that, but regulations are very useful for keeping out new competitors, hell, in your ideal system there would only be ONE logging firm
>No, socialism is very pro-all those regulations.
and the costs associated with them too?
unless you think complying with regulations costs no money
>The thing about socialism is it takes a very different view on what it means to be productive. The working class are seen as the bedrock of society and thus the most productive, the bourgeosie are seen as parasites that live off everyone else's labour.
a different view on what it means to be productive, hmm. yes, that's true isn't it. they think success isn't measured by units produced, or customers satisfied, but by who fellates marx the longest, or by who best encompasses the values
>>73375255
>I suppose you could say it's the exact opposite of Ayn Rand.
I agree, individualism versus collectivism. working for what you want or need versus forcing others to provide them for you
The best philosophy is that of the Jüngerian Anarch coupled with a despotic state. All political ideologies evolve into a fundamentalism in which the state is legitimized by a flawed morality system.
Fuck that shit. Just give me an autocratic system in which the state simply is and in which policies are based on tangible results instead of a worldview.
Medieval and ancient states were closer to technocracy than any modern form of government. Fuck political parties and fuck politics in general. I'd take a despot and his technocratic advisors over a democratically elected head of state and politicians anyday.
>>73375255
>I suppose you could say it's the exact opposite of Ayn Rand.
I agree, individualism versus collectivism. working for what you want or need versus forcing others to provide them for you
>>73375675
>traditional sense.
you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts
>That's not capitalism. In capitalism you give what you've produced to whoever owns the property and get a wage instead.
not true, capitalism is just barter, the giving of value for value, voluntarily. no coercion
>But of course the caveat "genuine" means that you have some infallible untried vision of capitalism in mine.
yes, I think we have a corrupt system these days, that socialists call capitalism then attack it, even though it's not actual capitalism but crony bullshit
>I answered it the first time around by saying you live on the government's property. But you didn't accept that as a real answer. So I posed the question why you can't accept paying taxes to live on government property but are content to pay rent to live in private property?
>Given how you evidently don't accept the logic of having to pay to live on property you must have an answer that will make sense of this.
surely you understand that this is a dodge of my question. why not just answer it first, then ask me yours
because there is no right to anothers labour? and your worldview depends on this nonexistent right?
quite the sticky wicket, hmm? what?
>They make you do that in public school as well. And as far as I know always have.
what right do they have to do this? would you refuse a childs request to go for a shit? I doubt it, that would be oppression, and you're against that kind of thing
>>73375836
>oh come on, you got one offer, and no chance to decline
You could just decide not to publish your work.
>are you working? if so, how many productive meetings have you had? ALL of mine have been boring useless wastes of time where people attempt to justify their salaries and hyp up meaningless boring bullshit "achievements". a complete waste of time. and socialism is ALL about committees and fucking meetings
I agree, which is why I'm not a socialist chiefly because I'm not convinced we're yet able to make a bureaucracy smooth enough to function as desired.
>and the costs associated with them too?
Yes.
>a different view on what it means to be productive, hmm. yes, that's true isn't it. they think success isn't measured by units produced, or customers satisfied, but by who fellates marx the longest, or by who best encompasses the values
No, success is definitely measured by units produced. But it's definitely not measured by money accrued sitting on your arse because your tenants pay rent.
all objectivists are secretly gay
>>73376469
>You could just decide not to publish your work.
I don't think that would go down very well with the KGB
"hey mr KGB I decide not give bluprint for double efficiency bomb"
"ok, off to gulag with you"
"fug XDDDD"
do you think socialists/marxists are the only people without bias? kind of super intellectual saints?
or do they have motives and prejudice like the rest of us?
> not measured by money accrued sitting on your arse because your tenants pay rent.
is all housing free in socialist utopia? or do you just pay rent to the government instead? and it accrues money by sitting on its collective arse?
how can this issue be solved?
>>73376204
>you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Control of property spread very thin across the parties and councils and so forth is not bourgeoisie in the same sense that control of property concentrated in individual people is.
>not true, capitalism is just barter, the giving of value for value, voluntarily. no coercion
No, capitalism needs private property.
By owning private property you can imply those who do not to sell their labour to you in exchange for a wage. They do not really have any negotiating power in this arrangement so they more or less have to accept your conditions.
>yes, I think we have a corrupt system these days, that socialists call capitalism then attack it, even though it's not actual capitalism but crony bullshit
1. This is capitalism, it's simply the natural evolution of it.
2. Ayn Rand praised the 19th century as the pinnacle of capitalism, which is exactly what Karl Marx spent his entire career attacking.
>surely you understand that this is a dodge of my question. why not just answer it first, then ask me yours
No, no. I DID answer it - you just refused to accept my answer. If you want to read it again then here you go.
>Taxes are the rent you pay for living on their property, the UK.
So how come you refuse to accept this, but are perfectly content to accept paying rent?
>and your worldview depends on this nonexistent right?
I hope you realize that private property is also totally made up.
>what right do they have to do this? would you refuse a childs request to go for a shit?
No of course I wouldn't.
>>73376469
I find it interesting what you do not answer more than what you do
>if everything is planned by one body, this is much less efficient than hundreds of entrepreneurs searching for ways of better satisfying peoples needs at a cheaper price, or with a better product.
>No, success is definitely measured by units produced
but not their quality, or how satisfied the "customers" are? is it not true that competition is not really a factor in socialist countries, especially not competition of ideas, there is one party, and one set of ideals, VICH SHALL NHOT BE QVESTIONED!! OR OFF TO GULAG YOU GO
>>73376887
In the case you actually did have schematics for weapons I imagine the KGB would have paid you handsomely to the point there would be no reason to refuse. I was speaking more in terms of music and books.
>is all housing free in socialist utopia? or do you just pay rent to the government instead? and it accrues money by sitting on its collective arse?
In socialism housing is an unconditional right, but you do pay rent to the government although it was extremely cheap.
>how can this issue be solved.
I suppose the only way you could solve it is socialism sans paying rent to the government.
Objectivism is basically "fuck your feelings; stats are absolute." It doesn't help the SJW cause.
#basedRand
>>73377028
>is it not true that competition is not really a factor in socialist countries, especially not competition of ideas,
1. In terms of commodities not particularly since the state controls everything.
2. Competition of ideas, as in the arts and academics did happen. Within the government to a lesser extent, but it did regardless hence why Gorbachev was able to get his foot in the door. Of course you couldn't openly be capitalist until very late into the USSR, but you couldn't exactly be openly communist in places like South Korea or the USA during the cold-war either.
>>73376988
>I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
when you say "the marxist sense" you are implying that this is different from objective reality
>Control of property spread very thin across the parties and councils and so forth is not bourgeoisie in the same sense that control of property concentrated in individual people is.
what?
>capitalism needs private property.
yes, it does. do you agree that this isn't limited to housing, but also cars, furniture, books, magazines, computers etc etc? what is wrong with the idea of owning the stuff that you voluntarily paid for with the fruits of your labour?
>By owning private property you can imply those who do not to sell their labour to you in exchange for a wage. They do not really have any negotiating power in this arrangement so they more or less have to accept your conditions.
some truth there, but abolishing private ownership of property doesn't solve this, now it's all owned by the useless corrupt pathetic government, there is now no competition, just a take it or leave it deal
> This is capitalism, it's simply the natural evolution of it.
no, it's criminal. the laws should be applied equally to all
>Ayn Rand praised the 19th century as the pinnacle of capitalism, which is exactly what Karl Marx spent his entire career attacking
doesn't make either of them right
>No, no. I DID answer it - you just refused to accept my answer. If you want to read it again then here you go.
untrue, you dodged it by asking another question, so I ask you again
what right do people have to others labour?
>So how come you refuse to accept this, but are perfectly content to accept paying rent?
I see what you are getting at, but there is only one government, I can shop around for landlords and they must compete, if they overcharge they will not get my business. your system has no competition, just monopoly
> private property is also totally made up
not answering my question
>>73358101
Almost done with Atlas Shrugged and it is frightening how the rather overdrawn situation in the book can be applied to our modern times.
Skill is frowned upon while inability makes you a godlike being.
>Ayn Rand
>durr atlas shrugged poor people are fucking dirt
>ends her life on welfare
>>73376988
>No of course I wouldn't.
of course not, but teachers do, regularly. even demanding that children ask to go shit is an infringement of a basic right
I'm glad you agree that schools are to indoctrinate us into accepting the loss of our rights
>>73377277
>In socialism housing is an unconditional right, but you do pay rent to the government although it was extremely cheap.
I see, so what you complain about wrt private landlords you praise when the government does
>I suppose the only way you could solve it is socialism sans paying rent to the government.
free shit for everyone, and only the rich have to pay! great idea till all the rich leave, oh, but we could enslave them, that sounds moral
>>73377504
>Of course you couldn't openly be capitalist until very late into the USSR
yet throughout its existence they bought and sold commodities with other countries, in a capitalist manner . what a fucking fraud
>>73377645
true, kind of comical too though
>>73377524
>when you say "the marxist sense" you are implying that this is different from objective reality
No, I'm saying the popular view of class-structure is different from the Marxist analysis of class-structure.
>what?
What do you mean what?
>but also cars, furniture, books, magazines, computers etc etc? what is wrong with the idea of owning the stuff that you voluntarily paid for with the fruits of your labour?
Socialism also endorses such things. There's a distinction between private and personal property, with private property essentially being business assets and personal property being "your stuff".
>but abolishing private ownership of property doesn't solve this, now it's all owned by the useless corrupt pathetic government, there is now no competition, just a take it or leave it deal
There's other ways around it besides going full USSR. But in any case as said earlier I'm largely content with the capitalist system.
>untrue, you dodged it by asking another question, so I ask you again
You must have missed my answer again, so I'll lots of stars to the side of it so you can't miss it.
****************************Taxes are the rent you pay for living on their property, the UK.*****************************
>I see what you are getting at, but there is only one government, I can shop around for landlords and they must compete, if they overcharge they will not get my business. your system has no competition, just monopoly
Yes, but it also has no incentive to charge extortionate amounts for rent since it's collecting a little from everyone along with money from all other arms of society. Hence why in the USSR rent was extremely cheap.
In the instance of housing monopoly isn't a problem.
>>73377504
where did you learn about socialism being so good?
was it pushed by your teachers? the media?
did they have a bias? was it propaganda?
>>73366505
Which is exactly the sense Rand meant it in.
>>73377961
>implying
>>73377757
>I'm glad you agree that schools are to indoctrinate us into accepting the loss of our rights
I agree, if more people realized that authority only exists because they allow it to the world might be better.
>I see, so what you complain about wrt private landlords you praise when the government does
Well the government sure does it cheaper so you can't fault them on that.
>free shit for everyone, and only the rich have to pay! great idea till all the rich leave, oh, but we could enslave them, that sounds moral
I don't think you understand socialism very well.
There is no rich, it's fully acknowledged that they would leave but no one gives a fuck about the imaginary couponbux in their wallet but rather the point is to nationalize their material assets within the country.
>yet throughout its existence they bought and sold commodities with other countries, in a capitalist manner . what a fucking fraud
>trade is capitalist
What?
>>73377927
I was reading an interview with someone who was living as a diplomat in the USSR for some Mexican organization so they got to live in normal neighbourhoods rather than the weird exclaves that embassadors lived in and it sounded bretty gud.
So I decided to read some books about communism and the USSR. It doesn't sound great but it doesn't sound as bad as I was always taught either.
>>73377865
>No, I'm saying the popular view of class-structure is different from the Marxist analysis of class-structure.
under a marxist state there should be no classes, that's what the revolution was supposed to get rid of, yet they are still there. ergo, marxism/socialism/communism is revealed to be incapable of fulfilling its basic promise
>>73377865
>What do you mean what?
that I didn't understand your sentence of babble
>>73377865
>There's a distinction between private and personal property
is that a marxist distinction? because private property to me is all the stuff you own
>There's other ways around it besides going full USSR. But in any case as said earlier I'm largely content with the capitalist system.
but here you are extolling the virtues of marx and the USSR
>Taxes are the rent you pay for living on their property, the UK
I'm confused, how does this imply you have the right to my labour?
>Yes, but it also has no incentive to charge extortionate amounts for rent since it's collecting a little from everyone along with money from all other arms of society. Hence why in the USSR rent was extremely cheap.
but you don't own yourself, or the right to your labour
monopolies are ALWAYS a problem
>>73378074
>I agree, if more people realized that authority only exists because they allow it to the world might be better.
socialism is pretty authoritarian. they even police our language, no saying nigger or coon, or muslim or faggot. isn't it a basic right to say what you want?
>Well the government sure does it cheaper so you can't fault them on that.
and all they want in return is as much of your labor as they can get away with
> the point is to nationalize their material assets within the country
you can steal their current wealth, but not next year
>trade is capitalist
trade is barter, barter is capitalism, the voluntary exchange of goods for payment
>>73378362
would you say most of your teachers were lefty or righty?
I'm going to guess lefty, as public sector is living off other peoples labor, rather than your own
>>73378383
>that's what the revolution was supposed to get rid of, yet they are still there.
According to the Marxist analysis they aren't really.
>that I didn't understand your sentence of babble
Bourgeosie=people with private property.
Control of private property being loosely co-ordinated by the entire state= not exactly bourgeoisie.
>is that a marxist distinction? because private property to me is all the stuff you own
Not exactly, even non-Marxist anti-capitalists have this distinction. But in popular usage "private property" is used to mean anything.
>but here you are extolling the virtues of marx and the USSR
I'm not saying the USSR is the GOAT or anything. I'm just saying it's not as bad as most people think it was.
>I'm confused, how does this imply you have the right to my labour?
On the same basis that your landlord has a right to your rent.
>monopolies are ALWAYS a problem
When the rent is so cheap that everyone an afford it what more would you want?
>isn't it a basic right to say what you want?
Yes, socialists do and always have disagreed on this.
>and all they want in return is as much of your labor as they can get away with
You mean like the boss of anyone working at minimum wage.
>you can steal their current wealth, but not next year
All that property isn't just going to vanish within a year. The next year if the Cuban revolution is any indication all the once rich people would be living in a ghetto in the neighbouring country.
>trade is barter, barter is capitalism, the voluntary exchange of goods for payment
No, trade can happen in any and every social system. What makes capitalism unique is the system of capital being the primary organ of power.
>>73378447
Actually my teachers were generally pretty right wing. History in particular was straight up McCarthy tier.
The only teacher I think I had that was noticably left-wing taught Religion.
>>73378863
>Bourgeosie=people with private property.
>Control of private property being loosely co-ordinated by the entire state= not exactly bourgeoisie.
so the very same things when done by the government is good, but bny private individuals its bad, got it
>But in popular usage "private property" is used to mean anything.
ok
>On the same basis that your landlord has a right to your rent.
weren't you saying that this is wrong? so implicitly agreeing?
>When the rent is so cheap that everyone an afford it what more would you want?
what is the current tax rate? I think I pay over 50% if you count income tax, VAT, fuel surcharge, alchohol tax, cigarette naughty tax etc, and rent on top of that. yet even with so called austerity we are still getting deeper and deeper into debt. More than half my output goes to the government, and THEYU still don't have enough to pay for all the needs of our own people and those we fucking imported to outbreed us, rape our kids and take over
fucking insane
>Yes, socialists do and always have disagreed on this.
political correctness started in the USSR, and trotsky coined the term racist to bash Whites
>You mean like the boss of anyone working at minimum wage.
importing millions of shitskins does tend to depress the wages, doesn't it
>All that property isn't just going to vanish within a year
but all their income tax does, and business tax, and no one wants to use your new property because they can't afford it
>system of capital being the primary organ of power
money? as opposed to ideals that are flawed from the start and impossible to implement
>>73360595
I think that the Virtue of Selfishness is a lot closer to what you are looking for. It's way shorter and not really a novel, but just a summary of her philosophy.
>>73379018
>McCarthy tier.
implying mcarthy was wrong?
anyway, I find it hard to believe, in what way were they right wing? in the modern sense or the traditional one?
how long ago was it?
I have to go to bed soon, good discussion though
>>73379018
are you a believer in the idea that race doesn't exist? and all races are equally intelligent, criminal and/or aggressive?
or do you accept that scientific testing has shown that East Asians are at IQ 105, Europeans at 100, africoon americoons at 85, and actual africans at 50-70?
do you attribute these differences to genetics, or is it because they are poor or malnourished?
>>73379464
No, I'm saying both instances of organization are quite different. Even if neither are particularly good.
>weren't you saying that this is wrong? so implicitly agreeing?
I'm questioning your logic.
>More than half my output goes to the government, and THEYU still don't have enough to pay for all the needs of our own people
I agree, the government shouldn't be bailing out the rich on the backs of the working class with taxes and austerity.
>political correctness started in the USSR, and trotsky coined the term racist to bash Whites
Actually it originated in the USSR with those who stuck with Stalin's party line regardless of personal politics being the politcally correct.
>importing millions of shitskins does tend to depress the wages, doesn't it
I agree, mass immigration is a bad thing.
>but all their income tax does, and business tax, and no one wants to use your new property because they can't afford it
Yes they can. The value produced by the property is produced by the working class, who continue to work there.
>money? as opposed to ideals that are flawed from the start and impossible to implement
Not just money, but material assets like factories, mines and so forth. Private property AKA being the means of production being the primary example of capital.
>>73362682
>Most people are quite happy to pay taxes
>>73379842
>Not just money, but material assets like factories, mines and so forth.
if we all vote to take peoples stuff, it's not theft, got it
anyway, I'm off
>>73379552
Right wing as in very socially conservative (it was a Catholic school), and although economics didn't come up much when it did it was generally quite conservative.
This would have been in the late 2000's.
>>73379758
I think there's compelling evidence to suggest there's a disparity in racial intelligence. But I think criminality is chiefly motivated by economic status.
>>73358101
Best philosophy
>>73379981
Carlism is the best.
>people should be free to pursue their self interest to the fullest extent
>SO YOU WANT EVERYONE TO BE A SELFISH ASSHOLE HUH?
Is an altruist working against his self-interest, when he's out there helping the poor?
Is a patriot working against his self-interest when he risks his life for his country?
Is a family man working against his self-interest when he works two jobs to put his children through school?
All these people have discovered things more important than their personal comfort, and pursue them with the fullest intensity whenever they can. The more a government intrudes on them, the less free they are to do so.
And if someone is truly selfish, caring for nothing other than their base desires, will taxing them change them? Or will it just create a perfect pasture for them in government, where they'll be free to bypass voluntary agreements?
globalisation and liberalism are just facets of capitalism and anyone who can't see this is literally retarded.
