Beginner's reading

Psychological suffering is not caused by the economic system just complicated by and intertwined with it. (It is a typical strategy, btw, to reduce these problems to our environment.) The given ideological, economic, etc. fields condition the "trends" of psychological ills but these are just era-typical expressions onto which our subjectivity (with its deeper structures) clings.

To give you some examples: in Freud's era neurosis usually gained expression through the typical family unit's prohibitive economy (muh patriarchy) – the usual problem was too much identification with the Law outlined by the father. See the case study of the "Rat Man" by Freud, or youtube.com/watch?v=JL3wj4g-omQ . Today, when the only Law is that everything is permitted – or, that only prohibition itself is prohibited –, the typical neurosis gains an entirely different expression (see Fink's latest books). Think about how the "sexual liberation" movement only resulted in more anxiety around relationships. The lesson isn't that sexual liberation is simply bad, but that there's no right measure concerning libido: if sexuality is a taboo, you get repressed desires and resulting symptoms, if sexuality is out in the open, you get anxiety because you can't "live up to it." Lastly, Zizek and Fredric Jameson theorize that in communism the typical social expression of the underlying neuroses will be envy. If you are liberated from the family unit and live in an economic system of free association, people's true talents and weaknesses show.

To cut to the chase, the root of the problem is language (without which there's no human subjectivity at all), and the fact that we are beings trapped inside it and not the fact the we live under slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, or communism.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/francois-martin-and-jean-barrot-aka-gilles-dauve-eclipse-and-re-emergence-of-the-communist-move

only text you'll ever need to read fam

marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm

marxism by Thomas sowell

Holla Forums

* What is Property? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
* Anarchism A Very Short Introduction by Colin Ward
* What Is Anarchism? by Alexander Berkman
* Anarchism and other Essays by Emma Goldman
* The Next Revolution by Murray Bookchin

Heres an audiobook of the first one. librivox.org/what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-government-by-pierre-joseph-proudhon/

Check out Bookchin and "The Next Revolution".

Check out this handy study guide.

deep

not surprised

if you're gonna read marx don't fuckin start with capital. that's dumb

readsettlers.org

Literally every path eventually leads to a cliff.

...

The so called lemming-like behavior is a myth, just like the supposed substance of your "reply."

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

Needs more Apo tbh. Manifesto for a Democratic Society is an extremely important work for DemCon

You just mad cuz I beat you without 'language'.

Pick one.

...

Why would this increase envy? Isn't there already envy because it is commonly believed in places like America that we do live in a society of free association, and that certain people are just wildly talented?

I haven't read any Lacan or Freud, so I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but it seems also that many people I know internalize their failure to succeed in the market as being a sub-par human, whereas it is more of a middle-class to upper middle-class phenomenon to have envy, since you may not be as predisposed with fear of total destitution or whatever. Is it just the case that everybody would be in a similar position to the middle-class person, and without fear of failure and anxiety about already being worthless be able to focus on envy of people who are performing better than them?

wut

The blatant unfairness of the capitalist system allows you to blame your misfortunes and disadvantages on luck or nepotism or whatever and pretend that you could totally have been just as well off if things had worked out better. In a perfectly fair society, everything would objectively be your fault and you're constantly forced to face how much you suck when you see people who are better than you in some way or another.

youtu.be/LNP4mkzwoUo (You)

Oh shit I'm late

webm related

Pic related. Are you prepared to give a point-by-point rundown on how Proudhon wasn't BTFO'd by Marx?

I won't even comment on this.

In order to be able to discuss the question of your first paragraph we'd need to discuss the current nature of belief. (Yes, I'm saying that this, as many other things, is historically contingent and unique.)

Let it suffice to say that no, "objectively," we do not live in such a society of free associations, and that those who believe that capitalism is already this supposed paradise perform a special kind of renunciation: they know very well, but still, they believe as if it was the case.

This is exactly what you couldn't do under communism, since your failures (just as your successes) would be truly your own. No one would be hindering your self-expression, what would come out of your stupid mouth would be truly your own. Think about it, and think about how cumbersome this fact would be the ordinary people.

Take an example: our so called "stars." They aren't as much our examples to follow but rather people who won the lottery: a sense of wicked "justice" emanates from their pure luck. Zuckerberg was at the right place at the right time, and he wasn't special in any shape or form. He wasn't useful (quite the opposite, actually), he wasn't unique. If I, a humble idiot, contrast my ego with his image, I find comfort in this fact.

My experience differs, but feel free inject your own. IMO the "middle class" doesn't as much feel envy towards those "up on the ladder," as much as fear towards the "down under." They view the "lesser proles" as those who wish to take away their measly gains. In this they are closer to the type of economic conscience that Marx called "petit-bourgeois."

Under communism classes would cease to exist. I have no understanding of your question.

This nigger pretty much gets it.

Feel free to enter the conversation.

the absolute madman

youtube.com/watch?v=SaPeyx1-gSk

Make your own thread, gtime Johnny. Please stop hijacking this one.

I contributed. My contribution relates to faggy OP's question:
He explicitly named Zizek (a Lacanian) and I gave him the means to understand the basics of this school.

What did you do?

...

Does anyone have the non-idpol feminism reading list?

Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici
Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale by Maria Mies
Night-Vision by Butch Lee and Red Rover
Origin of Family, Private Property, and the State by Engels

Nothing. I'm a well known shitposter. The fact of my existence is despised by most.
hueuhe

I have never seen a bad syndicat poster tbh

That probably means that you think that syndicalism is a valid strategy regardless of the tens of thousands of pages written by top tier theoreticians in the last century debunking it.

Try Rousseau
oll.libertyfund.org/titles/rousseau-the-social-contract-and-discourses

Stop following me around, I don't care you are butthurt

Howard Zinn