Who /leftylit/ here

>marginalized by MSM as it has been
>marginalized by MSM
>Noam fucking Chomsky
Get a load of this retard.

Read Michael Hudson - Killing the Host he explains some of the background for income inequality.

For a mixture of Old Left and psychology Christopher Lasch

First as tragedy then as farce

But sometimes lobbing bricks and bombs (even if culturally, by creating revolutionary content) is what is needed.

Then again, I'm not that good at following my own advice but that's no reason to not look for this attitude in what I read or watch.

>13 posts and no pol shit post

I.. Is left lit finally back?

I first heard of this guy in my mid 20s and that was from a class I was taking. The media most ignores him and has tried to marginalize his voice. Unsuccessfully, considering the internet exposure has brought him back.

I am old, user.

Yeah, we're being invaded by reddit again.

Has Chomsky been on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC much? He seems to be completely ignored by the mainstream American media.

As far as intellectuals go, I'm not sure I can name many that have had less exposure than Noam Chomsky. Ask anyone on the street if they know who Chomsky is and they'll tell you.

Sorry, I mean more exposure.

it's the internet, famalam
ask people over 30, only intellectuals will be aware of him

The only thing that would accomplish in today's political climate is giving the right wing something to react to. It's easy as hell to demonize an ideology if its advocates use or advocate violence (take black lives matter, for example). That's not to say violence shouldn't ever be used, but only when there is no other option for those in need of change.

Culturally, sure. And there's a time and place for forceful action, but part of the reason communism and general revolutions don't happen in soft bougie and upper prole states is they don't really want violence on their doorsteps.
The powers-that-be use the violent anarchists, punker types, to paint the whole movement as just wanting to live in perpetual violent chaos

Have you heard of Sacco and Vanzetti?

this

Ily butterfly

>reddit
>left

...

i would also like to know

jk
also does anyone have the addon that blocks trip users?

namefagging attention whore leave

your a dorable

Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty :^)

Kill yourself, dumbass.

Zizek is yet another obscurantist hack.

he's operating on 2008 info, haha poor polman 8 years late

What are some good leftist books advocating for authoritarianism?

What fiction and poetry do you read comrades?
Yesterday I read;
>Dubliners by James Joyce
>A Shropshire lad by A.E. Housman
>The Rainbow by D.H. Lawrence (haven't finished)

Also, have you found that your political beliefs influence the literature that you read?

"Can life prevail?" by Pentti Linkola if you want actual effective environmentalism instead of feel-good meme environmentalism.

>authoritarian >good >pick one

That is pretty much all anarchists

>any environmentalism that doesn't involve nuking the world's 500 most populated cities is feel-good

She's been here longer than you.

I wish.

I want the lefties and christfags back.

Much better than the emasculated pussy lala land bullshit the people on TV are selling you.

Did they leave? The Christfags and Marxists really made this board. I have noticed alot of frogposters and rednecks and right-wing Eurotrash suddenly popped up. I hope we didnt lose our good posters to /hist/

>leftist
>authoritarianism

/pol/tards call reddit left but are unaware of all the racist subs that were banned plus /r/the_donald and /r/european and all the right wing shit on defaults

I wouldn't even mind the invasion if those people actually read something that wasn't written to confirm their biases.

read up on Bookchin and Öcalan.

Every Leftist should skim Stirner's Unique One and Its Property and Die Deutsche Ideologie + Stirner's Critics, just to clear up the widespread misconceptions.

Get out, Veeky Forums was originally further right than /pol/ has ever been.

>it's a "we were always this bad, you're just a revisionist!" chapter

Sasuga /pol/tard

>originally
what year are you talking about when you say that? Veeky Forums wasn't particularly right in 2011/12 and that was before the apex of Christfags.

>not being a national socialist

pretty embarrassing famalam

marxism is so 20th century

So is national socialism.

A lot of them did leave for Veeky Forums since the split. And in there place came the subhuman /pol/fags.

Veeky Forums is a board for elitist classisists.

/pol/ is mostly just racist libertarians and people who fetishize the reich without actually knowing all that much about it, not that there is anything wrong with being "racist", it's just that /pol/'s racism is too unsophisticated and unfocused.

Nazism only lasted like 10 years you cucklord.

Hitler was a man against time. He died for humanity and now his spirit will consume the minds of the 21st century

There's literally no denying this. If you even try, you probably got here from reddit.

Now see, this is a proper Veeky Forums tier nazi, most of /pol/ are nowhere near that level.

>He died for humanity
>There's literally no denying this.
Please fuck off you Evola retards...

>literally

Take your identitarian ass back to tumblr

not an argument

National Socialism has nothing to do with racism. It's about ending exploitation through the only means available. The fact that you don't understand this shows how lost you are.

Culture is not your friend.

>not an argument

Oh, you're just a chucklefuck.

Just another example of woman narcissism then.

I just dont think there's a point addressing reddit-tier semantic arguments. Communication is rapidly changing, and will only accelerate on this path, so I don't understand why you wouldn't just accept the message as you perceive it.

user, could you give us an example?

Veeky Forums wasn't right wing at its inception, it was if anything radically left. One of the biggest early name fags was a transgender PhD student with a fixation on Isabelle Huppert.

About the most right it got was D&E being a bit obsessed with a kind of might makes right philosophy and I guess Quentin. And Ayn Rand shit posting.

He is just one of those people you want to punch, not because of his beliefs, but the way he speaks.

I think any rand was a secret left winger who wrote lots of stupid shit to make people dislike freedom/capitalism etc

It's not that Veeky Forums has radically changed but the goalposts have been moved by left-liberal anglos obcessed wtih individualism, universalism and progressivism. Mussilini was more socialist than any mainstream "leftist" politician today

The marxists probably went to /leftypol/

Lol what? Your average /pol/ user has quite literally read two or three times as much as your average Veeky Forums poster.

If it wasn't for the occasional /pollacks/ coming to this board, we'd be stuck talking about john green.

0/10

Really embarrassing

The celestial communion of the Hyperjew is imminent. Thank Odin/Thor (not Jesus, known Jew) that /pol/ is here with infographs.

Right-wing libertarian here. I can understand a desire for rights and liberties, but I do not understand why people want to redistribute wealth.

So I ask you a question with due respect:
Why do leftists want to redistribute wealth? If you do choose to reply, please state political alignment. I don't want misunderstanding.

>Why do leftists want to redistribute wealth?
Because if we don't redistribute wealth all rights and liberties will always be available only for upper/middle class and just a meaningless sign on a paper for others.

How so? And is the ladder not climbable to all classes?

>Right-wing
>libertarian
Pick one and only one.

>How so?
For example, if a normal man wants to marry an other man and maybe adopt a child (I don't know what are the rules about adoption in every country, so please consider that, this is just an example), he can do it, he can spend money for achieving this goal. A poor man won't spend his little funds for this sort of things.
>And is the ladder not climbable?
In some cases, yes, of course. If a man lives in a rich family with all sort of connections he can do everything. And yes, there's a lot of poor people that got great jobs, made themselves, but they had to work harder and probably they've been also very lucky.

Because meritocracy cannot be achieved when generations benefit from the wealth of their parents. That is systematic inequality.
Because every man is born equal, but not of equal ability. "Hard work" can never be a full substitute for natural competence of talent.

Whoops, I mean: Because I don't want to work lol!

>is the ladder not climbable to all classes?
LOL no it fucking isn't, Nick Carraway

More inequalities implies less social mobility.

In reference to your first example:
I think that in order to have something someone must have the 'means' to have it. The example of having a child applies equally to all: if they do not have the funds then they cannot manage the child. This can also be applied to things such as cars. Although most people could eventually afford their dream car, they may not have the money to maintain it (same applies to houses.) Now this should not be seen as a 'meaningless right on paper,' (the right to own a nice house or car) this should be seen as a fact of reality: one cannot own something which he cannot accommodate for.

A man is not restricted because he cannot afford what his neighbor has, he is restricted by his own ability to accommodate what he wants.

You have to be at least 18 to post on this board.

This may simply due to the size of the gap. The difference is that of 10,000 a year to multi-billionaires. Less mobility is to be expected. Higher mobility could likely be seen in nations with a smaller earnings gap.

Redistribution of "wealth" wouldn't solve anything since even if you changed the distribution to something really egalitarian but kept the current institutions it would just change back within a generation or two.

It's the process instead of the outcome that you have to look at.

How wealth is accumulated and its forms is what matters. Most of the wealthy hold their wealth in the form of liquid assets like stocks and real-estate. Wealthier households plunge into stocks and poorer households go into debt by borrowing from the wealthy at interest to spend and increase the value of the assets of the wealthy. The system requires the creation of a massive underclass that has to exist to support it that has to be kept stupid and ignorant otherwise people might stop borrowing and spending.

>This can also be applied to things such as cars. Although most people could eventually afford their dream car, they may not have the money to maintain it (same applies to houses.) Now this should not be seen as a 'meaningless right on paper,' (the right to own a nice house or car) this should be seen as a fact of reality: one cannot own something which he cannot accommodate for.

>implying social stoicism is desirable

If people stop consuming beyond their means you just get a recession and no one especially capitalists want that. There's entire industries that encourage people to take on credit and spend "beyond their means", it's their whole business model.

I see no problem with borrowing. It is the choice of either party to do so.

No one is kept ignorant. The lower classes stay low because they do not choose to educate themselves and make better decisions.

I refute your claim. Mass social stoicism would not lead to a recession, but it may lead to the closing of many large businesses and worthwhile businesses would prosper (i.e. health food retailers, gyms, colleges, ect.).

I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say. The regression shows that higher mobility is actually seen in nations with smaller earning gaps.

kys

80% of this board is Marxist to some degree

Ignorance is a structural necessity it's not a "mistake". Trillions of dollars world-wide are spent on education and marketing/advertising to just keep the system functioning.

What would happen if the lower classes decided "to educate themselves and make better decisions". Would everyone just live off dividends and be a lender? How would like that system even function?

why are left-wingers always so physically weak? like, pick up some dumbells or something lol

>I refute your claim. Mass social stoicism would not lead to a recession, but it may lead to the closing of many large businesses and worthwhile businesses would prosper (i.e. health food retailers, gyms, colleges, ect.).

That's not a refutation. The "closing of many large businesses" would result in a massive liquidity crisis. What you're describing is just reorienting the economy towards more utilitarian consumption goods.

Remember after 9/11 happened and Bush reminded everyone to go out and shop?

because we're too poor to eat well

>What is government provided/subsidised education and the social safety net?
A lot of the problems are cultural things. The Chinese in America value education and look where they are.

Meaning you're too stupid to shop properly, don't know how to cook and spend all your money on pharmakeia.

>Would everyone just live off dividends and be a lender? How would like that system even function?
I will answer that question with another question:
Have you considered the ambition of a worker? Have you considered the man who works three jobs because he has a dream? Have you considered the young man who has not saved up enough money to live off of his dividends yet?
Not all men simply want to remain still. There are the workers.

Exactly. Higher mobility correlates with smaller earning gaps and lower mobility correlates with higher earning gaps. The greater the gap, the lower the mobility. This is because more diverse pay-grades signify a larger gap to leap ergo lower OVERALL mobility. This does not express relative mobility. 'Overall' mobility is the key term. Compare the highest earners and the lowest earners of two countries at separate ends of that chart and you may understand what I am saying.

Oatz are cheap and so are squatz.