Give me ONE good reason we shouldn't burn communist and marxist texts

Ernest Hemingway, Franz Kafka, Albert Einstein, Ludwig von Mises were all banned and had their books burned.

>liberalism is what I define it to be
No, I think even books that say homosexuality is a mental disorder and even Mein Kampf should not be censored. It's not liberalism, which preaches civil, political and religious liberty, that censors stuff, it's authoritarianism that does.

Your entire argument is
>some guy says he's liberal
>censors books contrary to his beliefs
>therefore, liberalism censors contrary ideas

Don't worry about it OP, unless you're in charge of a world government burning books is a purely symbolic gesture. So burn away

Liberals are hypocrites. Deal with it. If you can't appreciate the irony, you're a moron.

Quite frankly I don't think any books should be burned, and hate speech doesn't exist. Saying as much or less would no doubt see me in prison in a liberal country. Remember when "lib" was derived from "libertas"? I don't.

No true Scotsman. Liberals are a group of people. Liberalism is dead.

It's almost like as soon as liberals get power they throw out the whole freedom thing. I guess it was just empty rhetoric all along and no one ever actually believed it.

Yeah, not my argument. My point was you're using a post hoc argument, since we're throwing around fallacy accusations.

Liberalism, ideologically, opposes censorship. You can say 'x group of liberals' is the most morally bankrupt group, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to ideology.

Fuel for when we burn communists and marxists?

>"Liberals are hypocrites."
>in response to a conversation about nationalist/socialists

Hitler's rule is the opposite of liberal, as was Goebbels' reign as prime censor.
I agree with you in principle, but its a very odd and out of place thing to bring up here.
Liberals tend not to burn books or censor as much as other political ideologies.

Also, there clearly is "speech" which should be regulated and trialed in court - label, defamation, false advertising, fraud, threats, etc.

Liberals is just a substitute for the left in America. It's never going to change, stop trying to make it change

Which liberals are those friend? Regardless, if you forsake your ideals that doesn't make you an exactly fantastic representation of your ideology, does it?

The so-called left in America are some of the most jingoistic and hypocritical people on God's green earth. But they're hardly leftist, and aren't considered by anyone to actually be leftist. They're slightly left of their Republican counterparts, and are subservient to corporate interests.

Liberalism goes back to Locke, don't equate him with Hillary Clinton, who would whore herself out on the streets to satisfy megacorporations.

The USA is a mess, nobody should use it to explore political ideology.
What you have there is a HRE patchwork of cultures and peoples, with two warring factions - the globalist warmongering imperials who want each state to have more independence in its internal policies, and the globalist warmongering imperialists who want more centralization.
There is no "left" or "right", just a question of more or less centralization, and agreement on everything else.

Because knowing how bad philosophy and bad art look like is important and educational.

Liberal ideology most certainly does not oppose censorship. Liberal ideology USED TO oppose censorship. Not anymore.

You forgot pronouns, IQ scores, and criticism of Islam.

A liberal politician who passes a law throwing pastors in prison for quoting Leviticus from the pulpit is in perfect accord with liberal ideology c. 2018 and anyone who disagrees will be thrown out of the liberal camp at best.

You are doing the typical /pol/ faggotry and not making any arguments.
What does "You forgot pronouns, IQ scores, and criticism of Islam." have to do with my post ?

I will repeat my arguments there:
>1. The case you are hijacking is not about liberals, it is about nationalist socialists.
>2. There is legitimate need to regulate speech, examples given being label, defamation, false advertising, threats and fraud. More can be given. Such have been regulated and punished for thousands of years of human civilization, and in some religions are sins.

Your strawman and picking low hanging fruit does nothing for your case. Haha, this fat girl has blue hair, thus we should all be ancaps, checkmate marxist!!!!! Make an argument.

Well yeah that's the state of the left pretty much everywhere in the world lmfao. The much loved Scandinavian countries are basically corporate whores, stronger than the US in regards to property rights, deregulation, free trade, corporate taxes (until 2017)

National Socialism and Liberalism are both totalitarian political ideologies that adopt widespread censorship, and it's notable that they would both want to burn the exact same texts, just for different reasons. If you can't see the comparison as valid, you're a fucking retard.

There are people rotting in prison in liberal countries for practicing speech besides those forms you mentioned, idiot. Those cases are not the equivalent of let alone justification for putting someone in prison for quoting the Bible, you freedom hating monster.

>Liberal ideology most certainly does not oppose censorship. Liberal ideology USED TO oppose censorship. Not anymore.

>semantics
Look up the dictionary definition of liberalism.

>A liberal politician who passes a law throwing pastors in prison for quoting Leviticus from the pulpit is in perfect accord with liberal ideology c. 2018 and anyone who disagrees will be thrown out of the liberal camp at best.
desiringgod.org/articles/when-america-put-pastors-in-prison
In this article, Madison & Jefferson are behaving as liberals, trying to stop religious persecution.

What Hillary et al. call themselves is largely irrelevant--what matters is ideology. If I called myself a Christian, yet deny all tenets of the Christian faith, does that make me representative of Christianity? Pol Pot's government called itself Democratic Kampuchea--it was not democratic. The US calls itself a 'global force for good' and says it spreads democracy throughout the globe, yet it supports 73% of dictatorships.

Why people are so obsessed with what people call themselves rather than what their belief systems are (neoliberalism does not have a manifesto, for example, and most of its ideals are just American conservatism but attempting to win over the meek instead of traditional means of obfuscation).

Then it cannot be leftist or socialist, rather it is some sort of state capitalism, and this is something the left has been pointing out for over a hundred years.

Define liberalism, then. Try to be specific.

Digits deserved, friend. I will continue to lament the approximately eight foot stack of children's books that have been gifted to me over the years - half of which were very short lived before they got dumpstered. To build on my negativity I will add that I have made heavy use of an old copy of Pinnochio, Lady Gregory's Cuchuilain, Yeat's 11 Plays from Collier, 7 Short Plays by Lady Gregory, and a compilation of Aesop's Fables for bedtime stories. I grow angry at reading tripe that is so poorly grammatically constructed that I feel like I am being programmed to be illiterate. There is no legitimate reason that a children's story needs to be poorly written.

Which liberal government burned Albert Einstein's work?
Which liberal government burned Ernest Hemingway's work?

Both were burned by the German regime under Herr Hitler.
In fact, I can point to socialist regimes, such as the one in China, burning books for ridiculous reasons - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was banned and burned for portraying human-like animals.
And before you start complaining that China isn't a real communist state, this was done in the 1930s.

Additionally, your claim that nationalism and socialism, and their combination, are the same as liberalism, and all are totalitarian, needs to be argued for. You don't get to take a mental diarrhea shit and then build on top of that. Argument yourself.

I spent good money on those.

In this case you are arguing that the quality is low, which is expected with the increased quantity due to lower standards.
This isn't a political statement, and not necessarily a matter of ideology.
As children's books are easy to read, and often short, you can check a book before gifting it to your children, if you want to only give them good ones. It isn't much effort, and you don't requite state wide censorship to achieve what you want.

What the fuck are you on about? This has nothing to do with the autistic attempts at pretending every single attempt to establish a socialist society wasn't truuu sozilism

Socialism is defined. It has a definition. When a system doesn't fit that definition, it is not socialism.
Not a very hard concept. Super basic stuff, really.

>and it's notable that they would both want to burn the exact same texts, just for different reasons
Liberals want to ban all Jewish books?

State capitalism. For a guy in a commie thread, you should at least know basic fucking terminology you find in the 50 page Manifesto. Or, at least have googled it before replying buzzwords.

>Define liberalism, then.
Not him but much of our disagreement will hinge on these definitions. I am also currently arguing definitions on a thread on /k/. Is anyone on the thread that would like to contribute their opinion for how an infographic to standardize use of these terms here should be constructed? I have given this previous thought but have never completed it.

>implying anyone bothers to read that pamphlet before shitting on it
If they did, they'd attack Marx on marriage, inheritance, etc, not on stupid things like they do now.

The problem is that a lot of uneducated and, honestly, stupid people will define some ideologies and systems as being shit. Thats the definition, being shit. And by that definition, they are bad, we shouldn't implement them, and people who support them are fools.
In this case, I feel there is a grave need to state definition. You will be surprised and shocked to know how little people that are discussing with you know, as they are mostly parroting out of context misquotes, and haven't read any theory or even given things an hour of thought.

>In this case
>Not political
It is when it is intentional. I have seen enough of this tripe to know that some is naturally poor and some is intentionally crafted that way. I am less concerned with what I gift to my children. I am perplexed at being put in the position of having to confiscate a Christmas gift because the material in question will destroy the foundation of language that I have already laid. Number five is on the way. I have been at this game for over two decades. My generous patience is exhausted and is being replaced with a furious rage.

>You will be surprised and shocked to know how little people that are discussing with you know
Now you are just being silly. I am already aware, friendo.

How are bad authors political? Do you think a shadow government is funding and promoting intentionally bad writing?
Please rethink your views. Consider the logistics behind them. The reasons and the possible outcomes. Motivation and alternatives. What you are saying is dumb.

Okay but then that just means the argument moves to the fact that it's failed to be established literally every single time it's been tried

There are many forms of socialism as well genius. Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialism, btw, so it has been tried. There are tonnes of shitholes which would pass as your form (if you were actually going to be intellectually honest but let's be real that isn't a thing among you people)

I had an argument with a bong regarding Socialism. He retorted about my ignorance of the fact that there were eight distinctly separate forms of Socialism. When pressed to elucidate, he told me that it was not worth his time. I am familiar with Marx's work but I am ignorant regarding Socialism outside of that.

If liberalism is defined how the original liberals defined it, then that spirit has gone utterly out of the world.

One of the masks of Satanism. I'd define liberalism and a good many other systems too (national socialism, socialism, Communist, etc) as what the snake whispered in Eve's ear, what Cain felt in his heart. The differences are merely cosmetic.

You're missing the point. The Nazis burned Psychopathica Sexualis to protect the Aryan volk. The liberals burn Psychopathica Sexualis to protect the queer folk. It's an observation. Stop falling back on red herrings to distract form it. I'm sure you could dig up liberals who are all for burning every book written before 1968.

To save on fire wood

>Okay but then that just means the argument moves to the fact that it's failed to be established literally every single time it's been tried

Let us consider Stalin's regime.
According to you he tried, and failed, to get a society going that has no market, no trade, no inheritance, and all property was public.
According to me he never attempted that, instead he tried, and succeeded, to get a command economy totalitarian regime, and calling it socialist/communist was just propaganda to keep the masses on his side.

Examine history under these two lenses and see which fits better. This can also be applied elsewhere.
Never has been tried is a funky meme, but also historically consistent. It really has not been tried, because it is stupidly easy to hijack a revolution. Napoleon did it before it was cool, you can start there.

OP here I am a liberal btw

Liberal as in 1880's liberalism

For imageboards, unfortunately, there needs to be a simplistic definition used for purposes of these sorts of 'general threads,' i.e. one you find on wikipedia or google. Those with actual ancillary knowledge on subjects will be able to comment more in-depth.

Imageboard threads tend to be introductory at best. Everyone sort of reduces histories, ideologies and philosophies to the point of ridiculousness on this site, at least from my experience on Veeky Forums, Veeky Forums, & others.

There's a lot of ingrained ideas that most of us have drilled in us throughout our lives that we scoff at, and since the pop. tends to be so high on Veeky Forums boards, I think the best course of action would be keeping it introductory until the event someone initiates a specific thread, i.e. "Could Hegel's idea on Mind be applied to 'x?'" supplemented with arguments. Bear in mind that thread will die out quickly.

>The Nazis burned Psychopathica Sexualis to protect the Aryan volk. The liberals burn Psychopathica Sexualis to protect the queer folk. It's an observation
Its a cherry pick. Out of the thousands of books and authors banned and destroyed, you pick a few and insist they are the crux of the matter, and muh horse shoe.

>Stop falling back on red herrings to distract form it.
Translation: stop ignoring my cherry picked examples in favor of the overwhelming mass of evidence.

>shadow government
>What you are saying is dumb.
Publishing is dominated by a splinter minority. To think that this minority gained power over the industry without an accompanying political agenda is naive. I managed to sound a lot like you for a few decades. I ran out of steam.

It's only a cherry pick insofar as the cherry is that both burn books, you dolt.

>The Nazis burned Psychopathica Sexualis to protect the Aryan volk. The liberals burn Psychopathica Sexualis to protect the queer folk.
I am not him but can you build on this?

anyone who honestly believes the idea of communism will wither away because you burnt marxist texts is braindead
even if Marx was never born there would still be people with such ideals even if they are uneducated, and burning books in general only makes people further interested in what they stood for
good luck trying to "burn" the books from the internet

You must've ran out of steam to believe that an organization which can't properly lay down roads is capable of such control. The doublethink that our government is incompetent morons, and at the same time they are ruling our lives, including thoughts, is obvious and as stated before you should rethink your views.

>it rains both in the sahara and in the jungle, thus they have the same climate

>Fuel for when we burn communists and marxists?

Why not dump them into the ocean via Helicopter

>Imageboard threads tend to be introductory at best.
I have seen bitter arguments yield fruit here once these definitions got hashed. If I could just post the infographic instead of rehashing then it would save a lot of trouble. There are a few good minds here. I have not lost faith yet.

So you're in agreement that it's failed to be established every time that it's been attempted? If the attempt of the Russian Revolution was to establish a socialist society, and Stalin ""Hijacked"" it, it's still a failure to establish it, because of the original intention.

>>Try to be specific.
>gives one of the most vague answers humanly possible, whilst LARPing as Martin Luther

Check em

Burning communists and Marxists books is unnecessary, it's completely and utterly irrelevant in the West, and only gets brought up by a few failures brigading from reddit who would rather blame the system for their personal failings

>thread about burning books
>in Veeky Forums of all places
I don't come here often but each time I do you guys disappoint me

In that sense, yes. It wasn't established, because the ideologues who wanted to establish it enlisted the help of strongmen who corrupted the idea for their own vision.
This is different to the usual view that it wasn't established, because it sucks.

Communism/Socialism is stupidly weak in its transition phase, thats when it gets hit.

>Why not dump them into the ocean via Helicopter
After we fail to accomplish our goals, they will probably say that we did this. We will retort that no nation on Earth had enough helicopters to complete such a marine dumping of books but it will be of no avail. We will say that we burned them and they will call us revisionists and deniers.

THE SACRED MARXIST TEXTS!!

He's trying to downplay that because being compared to the Nazis makes him uncomfortable. Interestingly the only reason why the Nazis/Fascists were bad is because of their political tactics, their praxis, tactics that they took from liberals and Communists (revolution, mass movements, terror, propaganda, censorship, mass summary executions, concentration camps, etc), but executed much more efficiently and effectively. Nazis are basically just a mirror leftists can cast everything that they hate about themselves into, all the violence and hatred inside them, and when they throw a bit too hard and see the glass crack they panic because they know how easily the illusion can shatter. Obviously a sane person would just support democracy and individual freedom including the right to own private property and say mean things about groups with bad reputations, but that doesn't satisfy the psychopathic lust for power and domination over people that certain people are drawn toward because of their own low self esteem, so politics will continue to churn out monsters. Thank God they're mostly impotent in the real world these days.

So every modern children's book is part of a conspiracy to make grammar slightly worse?

People like you wanted to ban penny dreadfuls back in the day, claimed they destroyed kids' minds and were the death knell of literacy. That was over 100 years ago. But no, only now have poor quality books aimed at children ever appeared. The only solution is to become uncontrollably enraged and advocate for censorship.

"Liberalism" is slippery by design. It isn't really necessary to define it because none of its supposed doctrines have ever been sincerely held by anyone, and anyone professing to do so has only ever implemented their opposites while doing so.

>So every modern children's book is part of a conspiracy to make grammar slightly worse?
This is a crass exaggeration of what I stated.

"Christianity" is slippery by design. It isn't really necessary to define it because none of its supposed doctrines have ever been sincerely held by anyone, and anyone professing to do so has only ever implemented their opposites while doing so.

See, if I were someone that believed US evangelical Christianity was actual Christianity, I would type up something like that. But memetics have no place in sincere discourse, especially for ideas which have clearly stated ideals.

>Obviously a sane person would just support democracy and individual freedom including the right to own private property
So, liberals?

>I am perplexed at being put in the position of having to confiscate a Christmas gift because the material in question will destroy the foundation of language that I have already laid.
>My generous patience is exhausted and is being replaced with a furious rage.
>Publishing is dominated by a splinter minority. To think that this minority gained power over the industry without an accompanying political agenda is naive.
Well your implication is that the whole publishing industry is out to "destroy the foundation of language", which puts you into a "furious rage"

See the problem?

The word "liberalism" has been redefined as its own opposite in popular discourse.

>Obviously a sane person would just support democracy

Why is democracy always a given, always assumed, never questioned? It is very flawed.

>you only have one vote, and don't change much, so you aren't incentivized to spend hours investigating what is best and your vote is arbitrary or based on charisma and marketing
>your vote buys you a package deal, you cant vote to be conservative on enviormentalism and progressive on feminism or whatever, you have to support a package deal and thus have to support things you disagree with
>its not sensible to vote for your most preferred platform/person, unless they have a realistic change of winning, because your vote would be wasted. so you vote for someone you dislike or disagree with, because you dislike the other realistic competitor more
>you are incentivized to vote benefits for yourself, which have to be paid by the next generation, plus interest. except they do the same, and the next, and the next, and eventually it collapses
>intelligent and higher utility people tend to reproduce less, which in democracy means their views will have less power, as there will be less of them over time and they have less votes
>easy to hijack by foreign cultures moving in and their high birth rate, which would give them more votes to support more of them moving in to have more votes, etc
>promotes bad economic policies, basically buying votes. if you vote for me, i will do this unreasonable thing that will lead to you having more money to spend, even though it is bad for us all overall in the mid to long term

Because it decentralizes state power and minimizes the damage that tyrants can do to ordinary people.

I am both of those posters. And no, it hasn't been 'redefined,' especially since anyone with any sort of familiarity with liberalism refers to the original definition and not the behavior of the US.

My thesis is this: liberalism is not what you call it. It has a definition, an oeuvre, philosophers, etc. Marxism cannot turn into jingoism, anarchism cannot become monarchism. They are concrete ideas; liberalism is no different.

What someone says they want to do and what they actually do are two different things. On the basis of what they actually do, you can gather that what they say they want to do is different from what they want to do. What they want to do is their idea, not what they say they want to do, which is just a mask. You're taking lies at face value. That makes you a sucker.

Its like you only read and only replied to the first line of my post.

The rest of your points aren't bugs. They're features. In service of my point.

>its unsustainable on purpose, thats part of its design

Nothing lasts forever.

Give me ONE good reason we shouldn‘t burn you

but what if I'm the authority

But worthwhile things attempt to last, and only fail due to circumstances. If you fail by design, you should go back to the drawing board.

burning commie books legitimizes people burning your books. keep the bad books, and laugh at them

House of leaves
21
España