Which one of the three should I read /lit/ ?
1. The color purple - Alice walker
2. All about love: new visions - Bell Hooks
3. My life on the road - Gloria Steinem
I've been trying to be a bit more social and outgoing and less introverted.
Join book club
This month's meetup is for exclusively discussing books from Emma Watson's book club "Our Shared Shelf" on goodreads. (these three books in particular)
However I am quite wary of feminist literature right now considering the huge criticism that I've seen it get. I want to avoid sophistry and the common bullshit that third wave feminist is accused of indulging in.
So, if there is a legitimately good book among the above three then tell me which one I should start with.
If all three are shit then let me know why.
>>7817937
The Color Purple.
Steinem and Hooks talk about womens issues like it's still the 60's.
purple, no question
>>7817937
>tries to be a bit more social
>mostly wants to just meet girls
>thinks someone in his feminist book club might fuck him if he reads the right thing
doubt.jpg
>>7818038
To be quite honest, I joined the book club just to be around people because it's depressingly isolated in my room.
The book club itself is not feminist. It's just a coincidence that the first meeting I'm attending has feminism as a topic of discussion.
I intend to just sit in a corner at the back and listen to people and then quietly leave.
>>7818063
a/s/l before i post my answer
>>7818085
No. I'm not sure why your response must be predicated on that information.
>>7818005
any particular reason? What should I go in expecting from The color purple ?
Dont read steinem, she hates men and its evident in almost anything she writes. Shes just a glorified sjw.
>>7817937
I don't know about the other two but Bell Hooks is a fucking joke.
>>7818342
Think of every cuntish third wave feminist stereotype ever. That's Bell Hooks.
>>7818185
because its a decent and readable novel, covering an important topic/slice of life and you should have some awareness of alice walker
whereas bell hooks is largely garbage, although well intentioned (probably) and steinen doesnt really deserve to have much attention - has said stupid things such as that women not voting for hilary are traitors and it's just a shitty biography(note i havent read it, but i doubt i'm wrong looking at the descriptions of it and reviews)
>>7818431
...and the OP. good match I guess
>>7818085
12/f/usa
I skipped a few grades and got into the honors society at my university due to my thesis on Zizek's explanation of ideology via modern architecture.
>>7818462
ok. I'll definitely read it then.
Will skip gloria steinem and bell hooks.
>>7818431
Did you mean bell hooks?
>>7820469
>That's Bell Hooks.
>Did you mean bell hooks?
nigga are you high? capitalization of the letter does not change the name of the person being referred to.
>>7818830
you must be really mature for your age and into all sorts of interesting things. skype?
>>7817937
read the first one
>>7817937
Gloria could become a passable reverse trap
>>7818830
That would be impressive for a 140 iq male at 24, let alone a girl half that age. Calling bs. You'd need a 180+ verbal and be a Jewish girl living in NY.
>>7817987
Id say stick with second wave feminism, it still made a lot of sense then
>>7821170
None.
>>7821178
This.
>>7818830
I chuckled.
So I began reading
"The color purple"-Alice walker
I'm about 30 pages in and although i appreciate how the book portrays the gut-wrenching situation of a naive girl in such a horrible situation, I find the prose a bit off-putting and difficult to read (English is not my first language).
I kind of wish that it was written in normal english instead of the kind they used.
I understand that the manner of speech is a big statement on illiteracy and lack of education but that kind of speech would be fine only for dialog. But the entire book seems to be written this way which is a bit difficult to go through.
Although i've gotten much more used to it 30 pages in, I think the other choice would be better. I hope it gets better or i get used to it more.
>>7817937
Why avoid sophistry? Read it and then expose it for the nonsense that it is. As long as you can do this calmly and rationally and not acting like a sperglord when you inevitably get challenged, then I see it as a good thing. You won't be winning many friends because, let's face it, these women will mostly be feminists, but you might succeed in changing their minds slowly if you reveal to them the falseness of their arguments.
>whining about third wave feminists
>gloria steinem
why has "third wave feminism" become a meme without any actual understanding of the history of feminism and why are anti-feminists so retarded
>>7818063
How did you go about joining a book club?
I'm pretty antisocial myself, and would like to get acquainted with more people that enjoy literature.
>>7824935
>why avoid sophistry?
Two reasons:
1. I can spend my time reading much better literature and there is only a finite number of books that I can read in my life. I'd rather spend that time on the best lit that there is, rather than reading sophist bullshit and critiquing it.
2. On some level, I'm afraid of that sophistry getting to me and inducing irrational thought. Although I believe that I have some ability of critical thought and analysis, I realize that even I'm vulnerable to sophistry at times.
>>7825049
i don't have any gripe against third wave feminism per se. I'm indifferent to it because it has not affected me in any perceivable manner yet. I just want to avoid the stuff that is so heavily decried about it.
>>7825859
>on goodreads
>0 friends on list
>stalking people I know irl
>accidentally follow someone's reviews
>that person gets notification
>fuckmylife.jpg
>sends message making small talk
>feel obligated to send friend req.
>accepted
>few months later, see him join a group on goodreads of a book club with a few chapters in major cities
>join just to see how socially well adjusted people discuss books on the forum
>they mostly plan meetups on goodreads and discuss stuff at those irl meetups
>meetups require every individual to bring a book and TALK about it
>nothanks.jpg
>email moderator if TALKING about it is necessary. if I can sit back and passively observe or listen in a corner.
>moderator says ok, but beware of others who would urge you to speak.
>decide fuck it. will attend a meetup.
>it is on this sunday. first meetup i'm attending and theme is feminism.
Funny thing. Almost everyone in the online forum of this club types so enthusiastically replete with exclamation marks, friendly messags and smileys. Several posts similar to "Just finished book X. LOVED it!"
In such ridiculous contrast to this board where everyone is an embittered cynical asshole to everyone and hell bent on hating books read by others that it makes me question whether people here even like lit at all.
>>7825987
Honestly, i don't mind the tone that books are discussed on this board, but i would like to meet people irl even if they are normies.
So goodreads is the place to find a club? I go there often to read their reviews of books instead of posting herr and getting swarmed by a bunch lf douchebags pretending to be "patrician."
>>7817937
Steinem is a neoliberal CIA shill. She belongs in the Gulag.
>>7825987
>theme is feminism
I'm too red-pilled for these things, I'd offend everyone the moment they started the conversation.
>>7826121
>Honestly, i don't mind the tone that books are discussed on this board, but i would like to meet people irl even if they are normies.
Exactly. Behind several layers of caustic insults and shitposting, there's usually a decent challenging opinion or two. I've observed that normies tend to circlejerk much more and are more likely to assert and agree the obvious.
Maybe i haven't met the right normies yet who're actually into lit in decent measure.
>>7826253
haha. what?
>>7826261
What about feminism irks you so much anon?
>>7826422
The only book clubs that i found so far in my two hours of research read what people here would consider "pleb bullshit." i do not know if the possibility of making friends overcompensates the fact that i'm going to be reading such books.
>>7826629
Even I'm not particularly fond of this aspect. But a huge number of classics in literature (stuff like Moby dick) are appreciated across the board (by plebs and patricians both).
If you're going to mingle with normies there obviously will be some level of plebness that you'll have to put up with. Whether this is adequately compensated with the utility of making friends, I will find out this sunday.
I'm taking the initiative anyway because as asocial I might be, isolation and loneliness drive me to crave some level of contact or conversation. I also don't want my social skills to deteriorate more than they have till now so I want to be around normies without entirely participating so that I still have some sense/grasp of how to function among people.
Maybe the bitter cynic in me will give way to some cheer and joy that I always see all these normies filled with.
Also, most book clubs don't shove titles down your throat. It's mostly "read whatever you want and bring that book to discuss here". You don't HAVE to read books that you don't want to.
For some reason, the club moderator made an exception for the following meetup to exclusively discuss these three books based on feminism. Haven't asked her why and probably won't.
>>7826661
I will actually send them a request to join their group. I will go to one of their meetings and check it out.
The only thing that is holding me back is because they call themselves "a progressive reader's club," and i do not want to waste my time at a sjw echo-chamber.
They have photos of their meetings and i saw that they read lolita, so i wonder how the conversation went.
>>7818063
Its not a coincidence. Academia has been coopted by the left so basically anything intellectual is likely going to have a bunch of social justice woo attached to it or else be politically neutral.
>>7826896
Why is this?
Honestly, i was having a conversation earlier and this came up, adnd we could not figure out an answer.
Buy one, pirate the other two, and read none.
>>7826903
stop reading too much into it, some things are just coincidences
>>7826903
If you are open to rather exuberant theories it was an effort of the USSR to undermine American values by infiltrating educational institutions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4
>>7826896
>>7826903
I've noticed this too and I don't even live in the states. Most people I've seen in academia irl are huge left liberals. I was a part of a philosophy club at my college and the amount of left liberal circlejerking was ridiculous. Right wing ideas were almost unanimously frowned up and openly condemned.
Moreover, there are a few women's only colleges in my city and apparently most of the women from those colleges (whether they're liberal arts or architecture or law or any field) are huge feminists because their course material has a massive feminist bent.
Even in my institute (primarily for computer science), the literature course taught by a professor focuses primarily on feminism. Haven't asked her why she chose feminism in particular.
>>7817937
gloria steinem is literally cia lol
>>7827985
I'd like to read how this sub-culture of academia became associated with left liberalism and feminism so strongly.
Although I myself have this strong bent but I attribute it to the way I've been educated since a child which extolled left liberalist ideas.
It's so strange to see people of academia associate so strongly with abstract ideals. You'd expect them to have a broader and a more "meta" perspective of things.
But apparently not. Almost everyone I've seen (including profs) have such staunch adherence to these ideals and I am really contemplating asking them about it's cause.
>>7827987
>>7826253
So i thought you were joking or were being ironic because why would a "liberal-left-wing feminist" be a member of the CIA.
But I read up a bit on her and turns out that this is true. Is it even worth reading a person's works whose entire career revolves around deceit and disingenuous literature.
Apparently she had a role as a CIA shill to fracture the black movement by dividing black feminists through books ghost-written by her.
>>7818342
None of those books even pretends to be "objective".
>>7826903
Leftism boils down to the idea that academics should have the most power and status.
>>7828102
wtf. no. Aren't the core principles of leftism egalitarianism and social equality?
IF you say something like
>Leftism boils down to the idea that academics should have the most power and status.
then at least have the courtesy to defend or justify yourself.
>>7828057
Intelligence agencies have lot of money compared to a university's payroll. They can easily offer a salary which is a multiple of what can be made preaching feminism on the free market. They start out paying you to do something you'd do anyway and then once you get used to the money and they've got dirt on you (starting with the fact that you're a paid shill) they can control you to some degree. You seriously owe it to yourself to look into how spook shops work.
Also they're well aware that accusing people of working for them makes you look like a paranoid loser.
>>7828105
Social equality = academics reassign social status as they see fit. Obviously doing so puts one in a position of power.
Egalitarianism = academics redistribute goods and status as they see fit. Ditto.
>>7828123
>reassign social status as they see fit. Obviously doing so puts one in a position of power.
This is the dumbest argument I've heard in quite some time.
Egalitarianism/social equality proposes that individuals irrespective of class has access or the ability to choose between the same opportunities for themselves. This includes social status and goods. Academics aren't reassigning social status. They're suggesting giving the freedom and power to the individuals to decide that reassignment for themselves. I'm surprised you can't see that.
>inb4 suggesting or holding the belief that someone else have more power puts the holder of that belief in power itself
no. for the argument outlined above.
>>7828139
When I say academics I mean the mandarin/scholar class. Of which actual academics are of course an important subgroup.
Re:egalitarianism. Yeah that's what it "proposes". What actually happens is that "egalitarians" do stuff like establish quotas of favored population groups in high-status positions and ban e.g. freedom of association when it reveals that some some non-mandarins are better than others. Egalitarianism is nonsense because people aren't actually equal.
>>7828167
>What actually happens is that "egalitarians" do stuff like establish quotas of favored population groups in high-status positions
well then they're not egalitarians. you're critiquing someone else who believe in prejudice but maybe pretend to be egalitarians. still does not make them egalitarians. argument discarded.
>Egalitarianism is nonsense because people aren't actually equal.
So you endorse and agree with the "quotas of favored population groups"?
Also, at this point I'm seriously wondering if you're a troll or not. do you endorse social inequality?
In what aspect are people not equal?
>>7828186
>no true egalitarian
Also, I don't want to live under a Communist government even though Marx had some good points.
>how are people different
How are they not? Height, strength, dexterity, intelligence, beauty, charisma, athleticism. Hair color. Propensity to eat leafy vegetables.
I'm "in favor of social equality" for the same reason I'm "in favor" of lead being denser than iron.
>>7828525
>no true egalitarian.
you can't call someone an egalitarian who doesn't agree with its fundamental principles BY DEFINITION. One can't discriminate against certain groups while claiming to be an egalitarian. Similar to how I can't claim to be a giraffe. When someone says I'm not a giraffe I don't call that person out on "no true giraffe" fallacy. Because the attributes that define a giraffe don't apply to me. Similarly the attributes that define egalitarianism don't apply to those who discriminate based on whatever factors.
To make this clearer to you, consider person X:
>X claims to be egalitarian
>X owns a fuckton of slaves who are treated like shit
Would you call X an egalitarian or would you call X a hypocrite? OR would you misuse the name of a fallacy that you don't understand in an argument?
--------------------------------------
I asked you
>how are people not equal.
not
>how are people different.
There is a difference between the two. Also, I wanted to know whether by people you meant "individuals" or groups based on ethnicity/race etc.
For example the claim
>blacks are not equal to whites
is extremely different from
>any arbitrary individual X is not equal to some other arbitrary individual Y
Of course individuals are different. In every aspect. You're just stating the obvious there.
However you make a childish leap in logic when you go from that assertion straight to "egalitarianism is nonsense".
Ever individual is different based on height, strength, intelligence, beauty, charisma, athleticism, hair color but based on which of these arbitrary attributes would you suggest we divide society and the extent to which dignity and respect is appropriated?
When it comes to opportunities, why distinguish based on these factors? Provide opportunity to all and let the most appropriate individuals prevail.
Similar to a qualifying exam for a college. Let everyone sit for it but the college gets to decide which individual suits best. It'd be pretty dumb for that college to arbitrarily disqualify a certain set of people chosen on any arbitrary factor such as hair color.
When it comes to social equality, dignity and respect is there any criteria that isn't arbitrary that you want to use to classify and discriminate between people?
>>7828567
If someone claims to be an egalitarian and then e.g. owns slaves then they're hypocrites, correct. This is a bit of a side issue because I don't actually care whether someone is super serious about their dumb ideology. I'm not impressed by assertions of personal moral superiority based on the purity of egalitarian practice. If egalitarianism is true them it's true regardless of whether you own three dozens black slaves you rape everyday.
Any difference implies a value judgment. Some of these are not very important. Others are. I don't care about personally deciding who gets to be high status, I only observe that it happens. Since social hierarchies form naturally, anyone claiming that they should be eliminated is proposing to "appropriate status" except they're not even attempting to do the hard part of deciding what's valuable and what isn't. And that's the *charitable* view. Because in fact, since social hierarchy is inevitable, anyone claiming they want to tear the whole thing down actually just wants to rearrange it so they're toward the top or, if they're dumb, to make way for others to do so. Specifically, since the whole thing it's so blatantly at odds with reality, massive amounts of coercion end up being used with, you guessed it, the coercers on top of the brand new hierarchy.
Now I'm interested in hearing you explain in how someone with subnormal intelligence who sexually gratifies himself by garroting women to death is "equal" to, say, you.
I think I'm gonna get brain damage if I read this whole thread.
I haven't read All About Love, but I've read stuff by hooks before and she's fantastic. She blows the usual tumblr bs straight out of the water. Don't go with Steinem, she's pretty out of touch with today.
>>7831437
according to anons above in this thread:
>Steinem and Hooks talk about womens issues like it's still the 60's.
>I don't know about the other two but Bell Hooks is a fucking joke.
>Think of every cuntish third wave feminist stereotype ever. That's Bell Hooks.
>whereas bell hooks is largely garbage, ...
Why will you get brain damage from reading the entire thread? Also, what's the best work by bell hooks according to you?
>>7830770
>I'm not impressed by assertions of personal moral superiority based on the purity of egalitarian practice
No one is asking you to be. There are always people who will hold their beliefs to assert personal moral superiority. This goes for any belief, not only egalitarianism. The most insufferable ones tend to be those who derive their morality from religious roots (but that's just my own personal experience and yours might differ). My point is that egalitarianism does not set "asserting personal moral superiority" as a principle. That part is done by people in general with beliefs across the board.
> I don't care about personally deciding who gets to be high status, I only observe that it happens
Of course it happens. No one is denying that. What people deny however is it's inevitability.
>Since social hierarchies form naturally, anyone claiming that they should be eliminated is proposing to "appropriate status" except they're not even attempting to do the hard part of deciding what's valuable and what isn't
1. "Naturally"? So if there's a egalitarian revolution tomorrow, that'd be "natural" too right? Brought about by humans.
2. They aren't proposing to "appropriate status". But to eliminate it.
3. I agree that the hard part is deciding what's valuable and what isn't. But I don't believe it is completely intractable.
>social hierarchy is inevitable
no. it's not inevitable. individual conflict is.
>anyone claiming they want to tear the whole thing down actually just wants to rearrange it so they're toward the top or, if they're dumb, to make way for others to do so
No. You're needlessly and groundlessly vilifying people who seek to eliminate social stratification. Either that or you're focusing too much on the particular set of people who actually conform to the behavior you've described and completely ignoring the huge set of people who actually work for a more egalitarian world.
...continued.
>>7831578
>>7830770
..continued.
>Now I'm interested in hearing you explain in how someone with subnormal intelligence who sexually gratifies himself by garroting women to death is "equal" to, say, you.
Any factor that you use to distinguish individuals is bound to be completely arbitrary. However, I realize that for a society to function amid conflict and limited resources, there are constraints that need to be factored in. Like the one you mentioned above. Sexual deviants with subnormal intelligence will be in conflict with the women they want to strangle. Conflict between individuals is inevitable. Social stratification however, is not. There are several communist principles that can be used to defend that. Abolition of private property could be a major step in the removal of social stratification.
I'd argue that intelligence, sexual deviancy are arbitrary factors. However, everyone realizes that murderers and rapists are a threat to the functioning of the state. So people attempt to assign each individual a certain amount of liberty, rights and opportunities that are available to EVERYONE with the condition that one must not impinge on anyone else's. It's a limited freedom. But these limitations ensure some sort of equality. No one is allowed to rape. Everyone is allowed to go to school and have the same career opportunities.
>>7831578
There have been several egalitarian revolutions. In all cases the result has been the same: mass violence followed by a new hierarchy with (a subset of) the revolutionaries in positions of power. It's not 1700 any,more, we know how these things end up now.
The social hierarchy is the outcome of those "individual conflicts" iterated across society, for the most part. Cops achieve higher status than criminals, while those who direct the police department enjoy still higher status.
>>7831976
>In all cases the result has been the same: mass violence followed by a new hierarchy with (a subset of) the revolutionaries in positions of power.
hahahahahaha. fuck no. You seem to be under the illusion that you're aware of every egalitarian revolution through history and that each of those revolutions were strictly egalitarian and did not arise from a convoluted mix of socio-economic factors. Look up the civil-disobedience movement, the non-cooperation movement in India. Look up the revolution against untouchability. Almost entirely non-violent.
How the caste system and untouchability have been slowly dismantled in India over the years. How disenfranchised women gained the right to vote, the right to live after their husbands died (tradition dictated they burn themselves alive: sati), the right to the same career opportunities as men. Women and people from the lower castes in india still don't necessarily rule the country or have completely escaped discrimination but the strides that were made post-independence were nothing short of revolutionary. And guess what. The people who brought about those changes and installed a democracy did so purely because they believed in a democratic and egalitarian society. They were popular, rich thinkers or aristocrats who had nothing to gain from this. Look up B.R Ambedkar. Look up Jawaharlal nehru. Look up Gandhi. There aim was purely to build a democratic and egalitarian future for their country which they knew might not even be achieved in their own lifetimes. But their work paid off tremendously over the years.
Sure, over the years there will be several who will exploit the circumstances of a revolution to rise to the top.Nothing is perfect. Does that mean you adopt a defeatist approach and stop working towards a principle?That is much more damaging in my opinion. Because the ones in power continue to exploit through the means that they have.At least these revolutions aim to level the field and reduce this a bit.
>The social hierarchy is the outcome of those "individual conflicts" iterated across society, for the most par
No.Not necessarily.I don't see for example how a communist state would have any clear social hierarchy. Old social hierarchy has fallen apart in my country tbqh and we're not even communist.
>status(directors)>status(policemen)>status(criminals)
That's because how YOU have chosen to assign "status".I don't understand what status even means in this context. To me the dept director and the policeman have different duties in their profession. They both have the same opportunities and freedom to follow whichever profession they desire. If by status you mean respect,then Do you respect the policeman less than the director? I don't. Do you respect the janitor less than the teacher at a school? I don't.I simply see them as following the profession.As for the criminal, his situation is a consequence of violating egalitarian rules that he was expected to follow in that society.
>>7832228
Adjustments to the social hierarchy aren't the same as abolition, which you apparently advocate. Also, the death toll for India's independence was in the six digits. Noncooperation was a useful tactic but it wasn't the only thing going on.
>I don't see how a communist state would have a clear social hierarchy.
Maybe you should look at some of the many extant or historical examples and enlighten yourself.
You're totally delusional if you don't think that a police chief has more power, respect, and social station than a beat cop, by the way. Solzhenitsyn had some amusing descriptions of your sort being shipped to the gulag when they ceased to be useful to those with the wherewithal to actually seize and wield power.
>>7834733
>death toll for india's independence was in six digits
yes. But the movements by most Indian visionaries (civil-disob, noncoop, anti-untouchability) and reforms made after independence were completely non-violent. improve your fucking reading comprehension ffs. Did I claim that the the entire struggle for independence was non-violent? I talked about reform. The casualties primarily arose from british acts of imperialist oppression.
>Maybe you should look at some of the many extant or historical examples and enlighten yourself.
Maybe you should realize that there has been no pure and successful implementation of a communist state. Maybe you should realize that their failures were due to a convoluted mix of factors that perhaps were not necessarily related to communism itself. I bet you go to parties and bash communism by citing "BUT LOOK AT STALIN AND TROTSKY!!!1!" as an argument. Because you're too stupid to have a deeper analysis of previous "communist" states other than
>"soviet union calls itself communist. stalin bad. therefore communism bad".
Moreover,I said that communism might be a more egalitarian society because I feel that economic disparity is too stark in capitalist societies for egalitarianism to thrive. Literally anyone who knows even a little about communism will tell you that we haven't even come close to implementing a communist state as envisioned by marx or engels.
>You're totally delusional if you don't think that a police chief has more power, respect, and social station than a beat cop, by the way
If they do right now does not mean they will in a purely egalitarian state.
>respect
As I said, unlike you I don't allocate respect to people based on their profession. You might do that. A lot of people might do that. I don't. In an egalitarian world, I'm guessing most won't. But it would require people like you to rise above and think beyond petty notions of "more power=more respect". The respect that you allocate is a choice that you have. You can choose to treat a cop or a janitor like shit or like a human being equal in dignity and respect to everyone else.
>power
different responsibilities and duties ideally. maybe more. so what? that does not detract from egalitarianism (considering that the beat cop had the opportunity to rise to power as well).
>social station (status?)
Unlike you and many others, I don't consider a cop inferior to the director.
>Solzhenitsyn had some amusing descriptions of your sort being shipped to the gulag when they ceased to be useful to those with the wherewithal to actually seize and wield power.
yeah bro. why don't you just conveniently brush away every act of genocide that did not occur under soviet rule. you seem like the kind of person to believe that soviet union's failures were the failures of communism. maybe enlighten yourself more about what marx and engels intended to achieve rather than cherry picking examples that don't fit your argument.
>>7834733
Also, you seem to have conveniently ignored all examples of egalitarian reform post-indian-independence. ( uplifment of farmers, people from poorer and historically repressed classes, reform in caste system etc). There was a strict order in caste hierarchy before where people from "lower castes" were treated worse than insects. People from higher castes would have cleansing rituals and baths if the shadow of a lower caste person would fall on them. quite literally. Reform to uplift the historically oppressed in India has been hugely successful and led without a doubt to a more egalitarian society here than before. This provides existential proof that such an egalitarian reform or revolution is possible without "mass violence"
>>7831976
>New class theory
Fucking wow. Never mind that the inequality gap in many revolutionary countries was much lower and the rate of social mobility much higher, the very existence of different stratas of society automatically invalidates those advances, right? Revolutions are judged by impossible hypotheticals and the status quo is always defended as the best we can do. You guys never get old.
>>7835161
I don't understand this person's mind. How can one be such a staunch advocate of maintaining the status quo and not working towards removing the inequality while at the same time decrying the exploitation of those in power? It's such a contradiction. He simply brushes away social change based on stupid unfounded cynicism without looking at the countless reforms that have worked and made the world better for the oppressed.
>>7835161
>you guys never get old.
Do people here genuinely are in favor of the status quo when it comes to social inequality? Are the majority of the people here on /lit/ conservatives?
>>7835308
lit generally seems to skew lefty, but there has been a growing number of people who seem to have bought into the pol red pill meme
>>7835308
/lit/ has a lot of leftists here and a lot of conservatives, who vary between the standard contrarian "where mah country gone" /pol/ types and a smarter but just as dogmatic model that likes to cling to "patrician" political theories for validation. Both of them approach politics from the same anti-whatever point of view that all of 4chan approaches everything with these days, though.
>>7835161
I never claimed that the dynamics of social power can't or shouldn't be changed. The existence of status/power hierarchies in post-revolutionary societies doesn't invalidate any good the revolution does. It does invalidate the assertion that status/power hierarchies don't exist in post-revolutionary societies. To which the other side of the argument claims
>no true communism
and complains about how reality ("a convoluted mix of factors", lol) has intruded on efforts to implement ~true~ communism.
>I choose to believe that police chiefs don't outrank police sergeants!
I choose to believe that the Earth orbits the sun at a greater distance than Mars. Fuck all those reactionaries that disagree! End hierarchies of astronomical distance!
Nobody's saying you can't change things. For instance, the behavior of the chief and the sergeant towards each other is mostly culturally mediated. But you can't change the reality of the fact that power differences exist and will always exist.
>>7835743
What about the assertion that status/power hierarchies are potentially non-existent in post-revolutionary societies? Again, you take the post-revolutionary society as something ideal, already achieved, instead of a work in progress. You judge these things by a completely different metric. It's an intellectual disability.
>>7835141
>>7835300
Some reforms make life better for lots of people while inflicting trivial harms, like perhaps the abolition of untouchability at the cost of Brahmins being able to revel in how great they are. Others kill lots of people for not much benefit, like ethnically cleansing the Ukraine to conceal the failures of collective farming. Social policies, like people, are not equal.
>>7835324
Someone opposed to a Communist revolution? /pol/ must be leaking.
>>7835055
Yeah, the British really shouldn't have killed all the Hindus in Karachi so that Muslims Indians didn't have to live under the rule of kafir pagans in contravention of the edicts of Muhammed (Pbuh)
Also
>think of all the people the Soviet Union DIDN'T kill.
I assume you judge the British Empire by the same standard. Imagine all the bad things they didn't do!
>>7835791
>think of all the people soviet union didn't kill
Go back and read what I wrote again. I meant :consider all the genocides that instead of occurring under a supposedly "communist" regime occurred in non-communist regimes. Just because a genocide occurred in a state does not necessarily imply that the mode of governance itself was primarily at fault. Communism does not dictate "you must kill tons of people". genocides have occurred in democracies too. does that mean that democracies cause genocide? Imperialism however directly calls for it.
Are you really that stupid to not be able to follow that line of reasoning?
>>7835769
>Someone opposed to a Communist revolution? /pol/ must be leaking.
improve your reading comprehension. that person is opposed to a peaceful egalitarian revolution. to be honest someone who proposes social inequality and class segregation sounds a lot like a /pol/tard.
>>7835743
I'm beginning to fathom the extent to which you lack a reasonable sense of reading comprehension.
Sure, just go ahead and make up your own quote and attribute it to me.
>I choose to RESPECT police chiefs as much as sergeants.
If you're literally this stupid that you can not distinguish between two simple words such as "rank" and "respect" then I suggest you get back to doing your english homework for school.
The amount of respect you assign to an individual is a choice up to you. But I wouldn't expect someone from /pol/ to understand that.
>no true communism
again. literally anyone who has the slightest idea of communism will tell you that it hasn't been implemented yet. If you're confused then refer to this post >>7828567 and the giraffe analogy. Also, while you're at it, use google to educate yourself on the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
