Why does the US of A have so many great writers compared to other cunts?
Only Hemingway, Stephen King and Poe are worth reading.
i kind of like henry james i think he is underappreciated
though i think that's more to his credit
>have
Had. Modern American literature is pic rel.
>>51698337
>no Faulkner
>no Fitzgerald
>no Twain
>no Steinbeck
>>51698337
why would you list stephen king and leave out several great writers?
>>51698248
it has a lot but I don't think unproportionately many for a 300,000,000+ population
they're just better known because English is the world language and reading translations sucks
I wonder
huge concentration of various European cultures in a very large and diverse country = cultural and creativity explosion
there were so many stories to tell here
I don't know if that's the case anymore
>>51698379
>Canadian "literature"
>>51698387
I can give you the point with Faulkner, but the rest are very very far from the others.
>>51698443
I think Stephen King is a main referent with horror themes.
>>51698379
>canadian literature
Freedom, mostly
>>51698248
>stephen king
>george l.l. bean
wew
>>51698682
that one is a forerunner and masterpiece doe
post your favorite 5 writers (not necessarily American)
Dumas
Vonnegut
Steinbeck
King
Rand (not necessarily her philosophy)
>>51698248
>George R.R. Martin
>Reading the sexual fantasies of some old overweight man
Oy vey stupid goyim
>>51698682
m8 that book is legitimately amazing
>>51698723
beyond her philosophy there is nothing in rand
>>51698723
>Rand
>good writer
>>51698337
>No Frank Herbert
>No HP Lovecraft
>No Cormac McCarthy
>No Richard Wright
>No Harlan Ellison
>>51698881
genre fiction
>>51698790
>>51698847
have you ever read the Fountainhead?
it changed my life junior year
Sam Hyde is him continued in shape
>>51698248
>George R.R. Martin
>great writer
>>51698933
>60 page monologues
>good literature
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x08QhNX_a1iB5Dt5uEC21q_GMvrM0sbd6zba2UOb6c0/edit?pli=1
>>51698933
yes i did, in my 3rd year of hs as well and beyond her philosophy the book is terrible
the males are ideological foils and the females are aren't even conscious
>>51698762
unironically?
I read Stranger by John Williams(I think) recently and liked it a lot. I don't think American writers are exceptionally good though, you seen pretty biased.
>>51698248
gr8 b8
>>51698337
gr8er b8
>>51698723
Dostojewski
Hesse
Tolstoy
Joyce
Camus
>>51699000
I completely skipped the monologue
>>51699028
I liked the perspective regardless
literature doesn't have to be 1:1 with reality
>>51699028
Her philosophy is also terrible though. Why that nutjob is given credibility is beyond me
>>51698337
a connecticut yankee in king arthur's court is a great book, everyone should read it
apart from inaccurate steryotypes of what things where like in the period its set in, its a very thought provoking read. It made me like america even more than i used to :^)
>>51698917
Richard Wright isn't genre fiction dumbass
>USA talking about literature
Funniest thing I've read all week t.b.h.
>>51699151
her characters are not characters
they don't do what characters do
they are written to fulfill a purpose but badly
they are inconsistent hyperboles but they bill themselves to be serious, they are what aspires to be a human but fails to take mold
though it does speak to the adheres so there is a connection
>>51699083
who would you put ahead of us other than maybe Britain?
also realize a lot of these guys operated while we were still a "small" country, at least in terms of population comparable to most European powers
>>51698443
Stephen King is p God tier tho. Shawshank, green mile etc
>>51699263
>>51699138
Why are germans so butthurt desu?
>>51699161
Nigger if Marx is given credence then the other side of the coin is Rand's insanity
they are both fantasy with a handful of piecemeal modern applications
>>51699312
That's your, uh, subjective opinion I guess :^)
I loved it and it put some hair on my chest when I was going through a period of low self esteem and confidence
>>51699360
the opposite of marx is not rand senpai
>>51699359
Why do you think we try to destroy Europe every few decades? Being butthurt is our forte.
>>51699161
More credible than Marx. Her philosophy would just result in a nationalistic spartan like society.
Communism is an absolutely clusterfuck. Yet so many nations attempted it.
>>51699359
Why do you think we try to destroy Europe every few decades? Being butthurt is our forte.
>2015
>reads books
>>51699031
yes
its the Brothers Karamazov of porn
>>51698933
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
>>51699315
Germany, France and Russia. I'd put those in front of the UK aswell.
>>51699415
In all practicality it is
please don't tell me you are now going to sit here and suck Marx's dick after his parlor room "philosophy" ruined a ton of countries and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions
>Bukowski: On Losing His Virginity
>i lost it at 24
>300lb woman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5cxkh0euvU
His writing is pretty based
>>51699504
Thanks tumblr
don't think Rand's the one advocating for getting paid to exist and throwing up a safe space over all of your problems though
>>51699545
b-but it wasn't "real" communism
>>51699545
marx is truth for another time
rand is untruth forever
>>51699465
They don't read books in Finland?
>>51699437
>>51699360
Why are you talking about Marx?
>>51699507
let's say the last 200 years of literature
also Germany doesn't really warrant consideration
>>51699415
So it's adam smith?
>>51699607
le cringe
>>51699419
>>51699451
>post has failed
>it didn't actually fail
Thanks refugees
>>51699644
German novels just aren't very popular, that doesn't mean they don't have good ones.
>>51699679
adam smith is a socialist really
>>51699626
It's much worse than Rand yet is eaten up by academics and is taught in universities.
>>51699607
what's true about marx? what's wrong with rand?
Rand is just excessive individualism, but at least it works. Someone who takes Rand's philosophy might be an asshole, but they'll at least succeed and do something with their life.
Marxism begins with demands rather than action and creating value.
>>51699759
In what fucking reality?
>>51699644
Why doesn't it? Why would I need to rate them on your premises?
On another note, Americans are apparently very confused about Marx.
>>51699626
Rand is largely criticized and disregarded as insane ramblings while the equal insanity of a large communal society are not only candidly discussed, but implemented, to the point of recurring failure
it's inconsistent
>>51699759
how the hell is he a socialist?
>>51699729
I thought 4chan doesn't let you post the same thing twice for a certain period of time
>>51699770
marx says x is actually derived from y not z, he is about the truthiness of things
rand was about i want to live this way because i want it this way
entirely incomparable
>>51699787
the wealth of nations, read it
>>51699790
no we're not
you're just prepping yourself for a game of semantics and dancing around core tenets
>>51699868
I'm on a train so my IP keeps changing.
>>51698248
>King right next to Twain
>Martin
Jewgle at it's finest.
>>51699874
no
Rand believed in the fundamentally obvious truth of natural selection and its relation to human society
it's ludicrous because we also are empathetic beings with a tendency to form communities but at the heart of it is very fucking obvious
Marx is a convoluted mess operating off of patently false assertions
they are ignorant in their own regards
>>51699903
>train
>>51699874
>marx says x is actually derived from y not z
This is what every critic, writer, and philosopher says. They just disagree on what x, y, and z are. This is too generic to be a summation of Marx's thought.
Marx basically believes that firms and companies hold special powers over workers. He believes that workers are more valuable than companies and that companies exploit workers. He believes value can/should be defined by an authority rather than each individual in a private trade or entrepreneurial activity.
Most of Marx's thoughts are absolute bullshit.
>>51698248
Of those I know:
Stephen king because movies and shit.
Mark Twain because apparently American love his bullshit and put his thief-kid whatever his name is in every fucking movie/tv show.
Edgar Allan Poe because he was crazy, but no idea what he wrote; something about a crow that killed Homer Simpson.
Hemingway because he wrote about Spain
And RR Martin because Tv Show.
No Idea of the rest.
And I know Lovecraft because vidya, even though it's not on your list.
tl;dr: We know about them because jew media.
>>51700074
>workers are more valuable
the value is in their labor not the worker himself
his problem isn't in the worthiness of a worker but to whom does this value belong to
>>51700162
None of those are particularly good; except for Hemingway. John Steinbeck, Kurt Vonnegut, and Ray Bradbury are better.
In school we got lots of Dutch, German and French literature, but barely any English language literature.
>no Lovecraft
come on even if you don't like his style you must admit he influenced a fuckload of writers and vidya designers who keep shoehorning half assed Cthulhu mythos references in their RPG's
>>51700204
And labor in itself is not valuable. If labor alone was valuable, then the India and China would have the most powerful economies. Labor without ideas is absolutely useless.
Value lies with the entrepreneur. These are the people who generate wealth. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc. An idea is much more powerful and valuable than billions of peoples labors.
>but to whom does this value belong to
Whatever they privately agree with. If I agree to flip burgers for $7/hr then that is my value. The best way to define value is to let each individual enter into agreements that they choose.
State defined value does not work.
>>51700453
the value is already defined how it is made into wealth is a different story
the entrepreneur does work yes but to what end
a laborer is always necessary, he is always needed
the entrepreneur is like the investor he comes and goes and doesn't have to work and the company works for him
in a marxist world there is no division between different types of work, there is just the man and his work, then there is the system to pay back his input
in a non-marxist world the classes of workers need to exist for one to be a parasite of another, ideas, physical work and capital are in different classes of worthiness hence unequal distribution
>>51698248
>Martin
>king
>No Foster Wallace
Do you even know your own literature?
>>51700674
>in a marxist world there is no division between different types of work, there is just the man and his work, then there is the system to pay back his input
The fundamental error right here
if you're a man of science you should reject this notion wholesale
>>51700716
i read one story by wallace he is a postmemdern joke. literally tryhard fedore literature. boring af
>>51700786
the question is obviously how fundamental
for the marxist thing to make sense you must have the intent to see idea labor and manual labor as relatively equal so that at least idea labor and manual labor could be interchangeable
marxism is about the versatility of human labor in any aspect, only later on did it become mass murder and wholesale slaughter
>>51700674
>the value is already defined how it is made into wealth is a different story
I don't understand you.
>the entrepreneur does work yes but to what end
He is able to tune into the wants and desires of consumers. He knows what they want better than any person and he is able to arrange workers in that fashion.
>a laborer is always necessary, he is always needed
For the entrepreneur to expand. If the entrepreneur works as a labor, he'll make more money that other laborers, but he won't be able to expand as quickly.
>the entrepreneur is like the investor he comes and goes and doesn't have to work and the company works for him
Quite the opposite. The entrepreneur takes risk. Everybody wants to be a millionaire but very few people want to mortgage their house, risk debt, and spend 10 years working 100 hour weeks. If the entrepreneur fails he loses everything. Yet when he succeeds people all around him complain about wealth inequality, exploitation of workers, and other bullshit.
>in a marxist world there is no division between different types of work, there is just the man and his work,
Then this is not the real world. Work exists to meet people's desires. If people lose their desires then work will cease to exist. People have different desires. More people want Fallout 5 than they want a Bible.
Division of work is simply people's desires and people's wants. This will never go away.
>then there is the system to pay back his input
And where does the money from that system come from? Who determines how much to pay? How does he determine what is appropriate pay?
>in a non-marxist world the classes of workers need to exist for one to be a parasite of another, ideas, physical work and capital are in different classes of worthiness hence unequal distribution
Please expand on this.
Why is George "Fat pink mast" Martin on that list?
>>51701049
See, I think that's the same thing with Rand. They are both being way too fucking polar because at the end of the day it is the vision of two individual, extreme people.
I see the value in, say social democracy. I also see the value in a meritocratic, largely libertarian society. I do not see value in communism and I do not see value in whatever kind of objectivist spartan anarchy Rand wanted.
>>51701049
>you must have the intent to see idea labor and manual labor as relatively equal so that at least idea labor and manual labor could be interchangeable
But this is simply false though. They are not equal.
1. They require different skills and expertise from the workers.
2. People are willing to spend different amounts of money on each type of labor.
>marxism is about the versatility of human labor
Human labor is simply not that versatile though. More people desire the products of intellectual labor than there are people who desire the products of physical labor.
>>51698248
>Stephen king
>Great
What is the Marxist view of this scenario:
>writer creates a book which hundreds of millions of people want
>people are hired to monitor printing press, packaging, and delivery.
Who is more valuable in this scenario? And how do you think their value should be defined?
That writer's unique skills are what makes the book wanted by hundreds of millions of people. Without him there might only be 1000 orders. And with a 1000 orders the business would not employ people to take care of packaging, printing, and delivery. They could just do it themselves.
In this scenario, the workers agree to a wage. Regardless of the businesses' success they will get paid $9/hr. If the business makes billions then the workers are only entitled to $9/hr. If the business fails, the workers are entitled to $9/hr until they stop working there.
>>51701066
1 the desire of consumerism is fake, in a marxist perspective it is the desire of consumerism that drives the desires of consumerism
2 his work, not his money, he is able to contribute something his workers can't, obviously if he is just a worker with money he is not just relying on his ideas the methods of his labor
3 his risk is a part of the gapitalism system, it rewards risks, it is unthinkable to think of an entrepreneur outside of the gapitalism system because they are a class specific to the system
4 there is no world outside of the capitalist system, marxism has intentions but where do these desires come from, why does the "people" "want" fallout 5
and after material desire there isn't much desire left
5 money is a part of transition from a gapitalist system to a communist system, there has to be an exchange of goods for wages but the idea is towards not needing it for anything
>>51701199
in a maxist system education is free and it must be free in order for it to be a marxist system
all the marxist make education a priority because it is the only thing that can give the system credence, that a marxist system doesn't have to be about simple physical labor
this though unlike other parts of marxism has a soviet parallel, when the entertainment industry/academics in ussr was making about the same as a miner they still made movies music and science
>>51701559
marxism takes out the bourgeoisie
this is like the amazon self-publishing, marx is closer than you think
>>51701656
I really don't understand it though.
1. Desire exists
2. Desires are unequal
3. People are not equal. People cannot meet desires at the same level.
The most successful entrepreneurs did not complete or receive a formal education. They spent their childhoods studying in their free time. Even if everyone receives education and has the same intelligence level. Not everyone is going to have the same interests/passion. People interested in useful fields are going to be more valuable.
How is consumeristic desire fake? Imagine a closed of island of farmers and villages with no money or currency. There is a person who can make really sharp and sturdy axes. Depending on how good his axes are people are going to give him cows, sheep, and other things.
There is another person who can make poor fishing poles. People won't give him much for his fishing poles.
>>51701961
In the amazon self-purchasing scenario the writer would receive almost 90% of the billions made from his books. Those packagers, mailmen, and other labor are gone.
>What the writer creates = No one else can create = What billions of people want.
>What the warehouse labor creates = Everyone can do = Only a few companies want
>>51702009
life necessity doesn't count
i should not have said fake, they exist on a different level, this level will undergo change if there is no mass media trying to off load that stuff
the american society's progress from relative equal income to the mass inequality can be causal linked to the massive amount of mass media they consume
>>51702133
it's labor theory of value realized, the writer and his money without the middleman
obviously this also include delivery boys too
but is it not incredible that they cannot make billions of dollars off of it, communism is truly the great equalizer
>>51702250
The only person entitled to the lion's share of that revenue is the person who conceptualized the product that generated the value in the first place
society, and economy, is driven by our tail-end thinkers, creators, producers and it is this prospect of incredible revenue/fame that motivates them
you remove that, you remove a huge amount of their motivation, and your society/economy stagnates
communism is moronic
>>51702342
some can argue that money is the motivation, money and fame, fame and money
communism at least will make that separation for you, that fame and money can be seperated
that maybe motivation can be purely about the act of creation alone
communism speaks to the essence without materialist pollution
>>51702250
Income inequality comes from different skills and different abilities. In any place where goods and services are exchanged there will be income inequality.Income inequality has only increased because luxury goods have gotten more complex and require more intelligence to make.
Going back to my metaphor. There are people who can create really sharp axes and get paid a lot of money. These people will find someone who is willing to work for a constant wage. Then they'll travel around the world and build multiple stores.
The delivery boy exists because people are buying axes that need to be delivered. The writer benefits from the middleman (publisher). The publisher is a collection of people with money (shareholders) and they can better broadcast and send messages about the writer's book.
I really don't understand labor theory of value. It does not match up with human nature.
>>51698248
>Martin
>Great writer
>>51698248
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Austrian_writers
>>51698520
Looks like a good read tbqh
>>51702505
That is anti-thetical to human desire for resource, which predates our development of sentience
it is inherent and just as integral as sex drive and hunger
foolish to ignore that, Marx was a wishful fool
>>51702544
this is just a different view of the same thing
if you are selling for some quality over another quality as the sole attribute of whatever you are selling you are not meeting the desire for sharp axes, you are meeting the desire for not enough sharp enough axe
this is not an argument against communism
theoretically all the produced axe would be bundled and distributed so you get some good ones and some crap ones
>>51702729
yes it is dialectical opposite but materialistic motivation is the fake one
>>51702729
this.
http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/keith.chen/papers/Final_JPE06.pdf
>How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence
from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior
>We show that capuchins react rationally to both price and wealth shocks but display several hallmark biases when faced with gambles, including reference dependence and loss aversion. Given our capuchins’ inexperience with money and trade, these results suggest that loss aversion extends beyond humans and may be innate rather than learned.
>innate rather than learned.
>>51702806
>Materialistic motivation
I said resource motivation. Beings need resources to live, and propagate. That is natural. Slapping on another term to it to connotate superficiality is intellectually dishonest. Money is merely a technological medium that we conceived to streamline the process of resource transaction.
>>51702893
well yes but remember resource motivation should already be fulfilled in a communist system
you don't have to work for bread
you work for ... motivation beyond the bread
>>51702806
What do you mean by materialistic motivation is fake? Once resources (Food, home) are met, people desire other things.
Here are the basic problems with communism:
1. Human desire is infinite
2. Human desire is unequal
3. Ability to meet human desire is unequal
What happens in a communist society when someone creates a product which everyone wants and for which there is not enough resources nor labor to create that product for everyone?
Who should get that product?
>>51703103
Or better yet what happens when someone creates something which no one else can reproduce or create. This person sets a high price for his good.
What happens in this scenario?
>>51703103
ever wonder why the ussr didn't have super popular fashion or videogames or even pop music
that they needed the west to import pop music and jeans and videogames even though they invented tetris
>>51703225
some of the motivation is gone, that is true
the motivation to create materialistic goods, that is the things that cannot be pure
they still did film math literature and sciencem, those motivations are still there
>>51703366
to add if there was a russian academy of video games they probably would have make a series of good video games
>>51703366
How do respond to those problems? Communism and the labor theory of value seem to be deeply flawed.
Much more so than Ayn Rand's thought.
>tfw the world's most underrated literary traditions
Mein Herz ist wie ein See so weit...
MeinHerzist wie einSeeso weit,
Drin lacht dein Sonnenlicht
In tiefer süßer Einsamkeit,
Wo leise Well an Well sich bricht.
Ist´s Nacht, ist´s Tag?
Ich weiß es nicht,
Lacht doch auf mich so lieb und lind
Dein sonnenlichtes Augenlicht
Und selig bin ich wie ein Kind.
>>51703475
>to add if there was a russian academy of video games they probably would have make a series of good video games
Not necessarily.. Games are creative. And creative fields are usually dominated by a select few geniuses or artists.
They may create passable or good games. But there's always the chance that someone obsessed with games who spends 14-16 hours making games would create a better game than them.
This is exactly what happens in music. And it's exactly what i meant by:
>3. Ability to meet human desire is unequal
>>51702970
People are not satisfied with a baseline. If you're going to get paid a janitor's salary for slaving away in a research lab or university, you're going to go ahead and be a janitor, or very begrudgingly be forced into said lab or university and do shit work.
>>51703765
This. If I could afford a house, a car, and a few luxuries being a janitor I would do so.
I would work as a janitor and spend my free time playing sports with friends or fucking women.
>>51703488
you have to see it in their perspective
those problems are a part of the gapitalist dogma
those "things" that gapitalists so desire are not "true" desire, they in a very "hindsight" way only serve to strengthen the desire of this class of "things"
a long time a go there was the sony-walkman
that was the exempaly product of youth, the borgiesie item of belonging, so that the underlass carried the literal speakers on his shoulders to show he could not afford the walkman, he was literally the walking man with speakers on his shoulders and so on, that time is gone, and now it is the ipad and the other green robot
it's self-strengthening, one group of people owning things to show off to another group of people, does a portable music device change life? not really, does listening to pop music that 4 billion people like make you a better person no, but it does feed into the cycle
>>51703691
the ussr was not without creative people, they just had to be accepted to an academy, they cannot make it on their own, the system could be fixed i suppose
>>51703765
that's the thing, motivation should not be derived from wanting a better life because you should already have a good life, poverty is dehumanizing but it should not be used as an encouragement
>>51703918
>should not
>should not
Moral finger wagging =/= real philosophy
Go talk about "should not" to 60 million people in your nation-state.
>>51698248
>no upton sinclair
>no frank herbert
>no cormac mccarthy
are you even trying mate?
>>51703996
the encouragement is not pure
after they've made their money they will make contribution no more
expensive contribution but it is the other poor guys that pays for it
>>51704057
>no jack london too
*sigh*
>>51703918
Anon I want to hug you. You're nice and I think that's great. In a perfect world people should have food, home, friends, a girlfriend, and a couple of hobbies.
Yet in the real world things are not so equal. People are not entitled to a girlfriend nor to friends. If you want a girlfriend you need to offer something to her. You need to have a good personality, be somewhat interesting, etc. Women do not have to be a person's girlfriends.
The same is true of poverty vs. wealth. All throughout human history if you wanted somethign you had to go out and get it. If you wanted food you had to go hunting or die.
Today's poor people are in better positons than ever. By working 40 hours a week they can afford food, a shitty apartment, and small luxuries.
Nothing else can be guaranteed nor should be.
>>51704063
>after they've made their money they will make contribution no more
After they make their money, they put it in banks and investments. So that when that poor person wants to create a diner, bakery, or business, he can get a business loan. He can start a business and eventually rise up out of poverty.
>>51704207
It doesn't have to be this way
This is how marx the engels saw
>>51704274
some people had to contribute for life it was the only thing worth doing
>>51704337
marx and engels*
>>51704337
Why. What is the other method? State control and appropriation of goods does not work.
The free market results in the best society for everyone. Those at the bottom are more comfortable than ever. Those at the top enjoy their lives.
I cannot see a communist society working, unless you get violent and force people to act in a certain way.
1. There will always be a person who creates something which everyone wants and for which there is not enough off.
2. There will be people that are more intelligent, more hardworking, and can create better goods.
3. There will be people who desire better, wealthier lives. These people will become politicians or government workers and will steal from the commune.
>>51704580
have you ever read das kapital?
Only sections of it for class. I honestly couldn't finish it. I found Marx's depiction of firms (they have absolute power) to be a bit silly. And he overestimates the value of labor.
>>51698248
>George R. R. Martin
really?
I mean, really
>>51704580
there isn't another method
communism is the anti-capitalist thinking, it critiques the modes of the system
there are shades of gapitalism and each has their own inequalities they have to deal with the different shades of capitalism is reflected on the marxist and other social philosophies that deals with the loops of gapitalism itself
1 not that there isn't but how is he that person rewarded
2 intelligent people should be doing mind work to further human understanding rather than to create materialistic goods to further gapitalism
3 gapitalist system deals with stealing of funds the same way commies do, they went to jail, the desire for wealth part is true so we can just blame the ussr for being unable to provide a good enough incentive
there is an abundance of wanting to be more affluent than another, but this is the drive that is a necessity to the gapitalist system, it enhances it, the mass media, current events, music etc enhances the image of the one who broke all other, it is the mystical cult of personality, instead it is the cult of wealth
>>51698723
6 is the minimum I can go :
Rilke
Huysmans
Tchekhov
La Fontaine
Gombrowicz
Malherbe
>>51704992
In a free market society to get wealthy you have to create something which people want. The only exception is when the government intervenes and creates regulations that benefit certain groups.
>2 intelligent people should be doing mind work to further human understanding rather than to create materialistic goods to further gapitalism
Why should you decide what they do? Intelligent people have different desires. The intelligent people who desire knowledge are in universities and laboratories. The intelligent people who desire wealth are creating businesses.
A communist society will not change people's desires for wealth, luxury, and women. Intelligent people will move into the government, eventually collude with each other, and steal from the people.
>3 gapitalist system deals with stealing of funds the same way commies do, they went to jail
And who sends them to jail? They send themselves? The government has most of the power and information. There are no other powerful individuals or corporations to investigate corruption.
>>51698520
Whoever wrote this was ahead of his time
>>51705233
1 this is a loop, communism saw the society as the tool of humanity, that you benefit the society if you could, that you would further the society for free, basically
2 this desire for wealth is fake if everyone had the same stuff, you can say it's inhuman, that is true but this was the only way out of inequality
3 if we are dealing with anarcho communes it can be self regulated
an authoritarian government is not necessary to communism but that does mean market forces need to be made irrelevant
capitalist system tends of a master-slave relationship, so making a comparison to animals is kind of illogical since there is a technical part of mercantilism involved
if there was an advanced alien civ like our own, they would have had some ideological struggle like communism
and for us it will always be there lurking, maybe not in whole but in part
>>51705199
I'm kind of sad I don't recognize most of these
do you read a lot?
>>51705688
Just read them (at least Tchekhov, Huysmans and Gombrowicz ; Malherbe/La Fontaine/Rilke really lose their power when translated)
>do you read a lot?
I suppose
>>51706016
>>do you read a lot?
>I suppose
top kek
>>51706060
It really depends on what you call "a lot"
>>51706174
i agree. i just found your response funny.
>>51698248
W-what does /int/ think of A Confederacy of Dunces?
