>3 superstates control the world
>Based off real states/empires
>Roughly same size and location
>Serious social inequality/hierarchy in the British one
>Constant warfare between the 3
>One guy in a conquered island tries to rise up
>Villain tries to create a world where everyone is too stupid to lie/though crime
So Charles zi Britannia is Big Brother confirmed?
Other urls found in this thread:
what's 1984?
Uncultured swne
clearly not, as the maps are entirely different
1984 is a borefest
A novel demonizing leftists used by leftists to demonize rightists in present day America.
It is truly a hilarious irony.
I thought it was interesting, then again, I read it as an edgy high schooler, so I don't remember much.
>demonizing leftists
user, it demonizes Authoritarianism.
A novel demonizing authoritarian leftists written by a libertarian leftist*
fixed that for you
It is specifically aimed at socialism.
>libertarian leftist
An oxymoron.
Standing up against social authoritarianism (dictatorships) and economic authoritarianism (capitalism) is perfectly consistent
An awful book often namedropped by posseurs and underages to appear cultured.
baby's guide to basic politics
ie garbage stupid people read and mention to think they're smart
>we need a system to control the system
Uh-huh.
It's a circle.
>any leftist economy is necessarily centralized
oh hey, how about you stop reading Von Mises and get a real education?
>non-centralized
>leftism
How about you stop being an anarcho primitivist ape?
>cooperatives are primitive
I laugh at you
You do realize Orwell was a Socialist?
You're one of those, huh?
>we don't need jails and laws
>people will just play nice out of the goodness of their hearts
It's mind-boggling how removed from reality Western kids actually are.
democratic socialist
>economy based on cooperative companies, rather than owned by individual capital
>anything to do with anarchy at all
you aren't very bright are you
Still a Socialist.
My point was that 1984 was not written to "demonize leftists" but to demonize Authoritarianism and that Orwell himself was a leftist,which a lot of people tend to skip over when talking about him.
>baby's guide to basic politics
Did you even read it or do you just want to appear smart by claming something popular is stupid? Because 1984 has literally nothing to do with being a guide about politics.
>individual capital
Perpetuating 1940s paradigms in the age of joint-stock.
>When you turn Sup Forums into Sup Forums
The only left leaning belief he held was of shared ownership of production.
So even if he himself self identified as a leftist, he really wasn't. All of his other ideals are libertarian and in Europe and the US nowadays he'd be considered a centrist. Maybe even right leaning considering his vehement support of traditional family values.
...
Not Sup Forums
Fuck off
>missing the point by 100 km
It's kind of sad when you see all these people shitting on one of the most important works of fiction of the twentieth century.
>The only left leaning belief he held was of shared ownership of production.
Literally what Socialism is:Workers Ownership of the Means of Production.
His beliefs on "family values" are irrelevant cause that is just a bunch of identity politics that have nothing to do with someones ideology and position on the left/ right paradigm (Which itself is retarded)
Since when is a year a universe?
Corporations are already cooperative companies.
Problem?
Keep licking the boot and maybe you'll get that 2% raise
Sorry I hurt your feelings. That's exactly what it became, a guide for retards to understand why authoritarianism is bad. It's the reason why it's recommended and mentioned by every idiot who claims to understand politics.
Now, whether you understood it or not is not my problem, if you need any more explaining you're probably as retarded as you sound. I'm not giving reasons to bump this garbage.
I'd recommend you not visit /lit/ if this is too much for you to handle, user.
How many works have you read to come to that conclusion? I hope no fewer than 100.
You are praising the Naruto of literature
So conglomerates? Well, as long as private property, and capitals are owned by individuals and the cooperation its optional, then yeah, it works.
>people will just play nice out of the goodness of their hearts
It always amuses me how come Smith is still right hundreds of years later. But to be honest, I still think the equilibrium he proposed is still somewhat feasible.
isn't that atlas shrugged?
Cooperating isn't optional. It's the norm.
Just like slavery was once the norm and now it's banned, capitalism will be banned and cooperative companies will reign.
That's the Dragon Ball Super of literature
>capitalism will be banned
By whom?!
I thought you said you were against centralization.
>leftist IQ falling every year
It is amazing how you're in the negatives and it keeps plummeting.
You are the kind of retard that would have fought for slavery in the civil war because "centralization is bad"
Then no, fuck that. Cooperation must be optional based on the common goals of like minded individuals. Fuck it, it sounds like a newer version of communism.
Also, capitalism isn't inherently bad, you just expect people to be good natured when we know we are all egoist inside, to some degree.
>It is specifically aimed at socialism.
You might want to look up the author sometime, Sup Forums.
Priorities, nigger. Priorities.
Brave New World was a better book anyway.
So it's something you have to turn your brain off to think it's good, makes sense.
I agree.
That fucking flask song or whatever was retarded though.
We are only talking about the ownership of companies. Communism was never tried. Dictatorial Soviet socialism was centralized: all the companies were owned and managed by the government. It has nothing to do with a cooperative economy.
>capitalism will be banned
>somehow it's good
You can't be this serious.
>a guide for retards to understand why authoritarianism is bad
It's a guide to explain how totalitarianism works. It never really says it's either good nor bad.
The only good thing about capitalism is the competition between companies. That still exists in a cooperative system.
Code Geass is from the 21st century.
Who cares? Animal Farm is better anyway.
>Communism was never tried.
Because it's not possible.
You can't decide, what you're going to study, what you're going to work, and what your position is going to be on your own.
If that happens we'll have 99% of the population working as art historians and we'd all starve, freeze and die from curable diseases.
There always has to be a guideline what we need.
In communism it's the government. In capitalism it's the free market.
Why does Eastasia use 死 as a symbol? Shouldn't they pick something communist like 共 or 社会?
If everything is cooperative, what are the incentives for people to produce? to innovate? We do things because we expect something in return, and that's why collectivism doesn't work, you can't expect people to do thing out of the goodness in their hearts.
It is very concept of private property, because it is ours, and ours alone we take good care of it, we make it thrive. Forcing cooperation just would undermine the incentives of having any productive work done.
People always complains about capitalism, but failed to realize that thanks to it they live longer and have access to more goods ands services.
George Orwell fought with POUM in Spain and sympathized with the anarchists (who were left-wing). He was basically a social democrat/democratic socialist who saw the danger of Stalinism.
It's a decent satire but vastly overused.
Anyway, this is a horrible thread so I'll sink it.
>In communism it's the government. In capitalism it's the free market.
The sweet, real sweet irony in this, is that while communism preaches over collective welfare, only one entity decides what is good for the masses, while capitalism preaches for individual welfare while the free market is self regulating collective (well for the most part).
Since this is a disguised Sup Forums thread, do you think that someone with Eisenhower's economic ideology went up against Hillary/The Republicans would he be too left wing.
Precisely.
This is why any form of leftism is quite honestly wrong and always will be.
In centralized communism you have to hope the government isn't a bunch of ape like villagers who killed every last member of the intelligentsia they could find and then plunge the country into decades of hunger and misery (like socialist Eastern Europe and China) from their seats in power.
In anarchism you hope the people can agree on anything so they could actually get on their asses and work. Needless to say - that shit ain't going to happen.
So the best alternative is in fact capitalism and the free market, the people decide - but passively.
>Because it's not possible.
That, and no two communist can agree on the details on how it should work.
Whenever you try to bring up how communism is supposed to fill in the gaps left by free markets they hand wave the problem away and say some vague crap about how automation and cybernetics will solve everything.
Eh, rollin'
>plunge the country into decades of hunger and misery like socialist Eastern Europe
As opposed to what centuries of hunger and misery?
Socialism in my country literally built 90% of everything there is here.Literally all schools,roads,hospitals,houses,buildings.Anything and everything was built by it.
You can't expect a shitty underindustrialised,underdeveloped country to surpass countries that have benefited from trade,colonies and decades of peace.
Did they ever explain why Britannia doesnt even control Britain anymore? Pretty shit empire desu if they dont even have the homeland that is their namesake.
>In anarchism you hope the people can agree on anything so they could actually get on their asses and work.
In my opinion, it would be a lot easier if people at least understood that by seeking your personal wealth you also, indirectly, help another person to achieve his own welfare.
>You can't expect a shitty underindustrialised
That's the problem, you can't expect people to invest in your country if you don't have the infrastructure nor the legal framework to protect private property. I know it all too well, I'm from a third world country myself.
>Tfw the only non-Israel candidate during 2016 was Bernie, a Jew
I can literally taste the irony.
>Socialism in my country literally built 90% of everything there is here
I hope you're not living in the Balkans because if you are then that's about as close to reality as any other Cold War propaganda.
For the most part Eastern Europe did not suffer during the WW2. The fact it's so far behind the rest of Europe, some parts of which were devastate speaks for itself.
Napoléon succeded to invade Britain, so the royal family fleed to the north american british colonies.
Free market is bullshit. It's always a shitty Monopoly game in which all the capital ends in the hands of a few ones while the rest own nothing but credit.
>Socialism in my country literally built 90% of everything there is here
"Socialism" means a lot of things these days. Outright communism means the abolition of all private property, including personal homes, which is somehow on the rise. hopefully just as a bad joke
I will accept no one else.
>Including personal homes
You are mixing up private property and personal property.
When it says the abolition of private property it means the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
Your house is personal property.
This is,like,basic shit,how can you not know this yet talk so clearly about it.
Concentration of capital is not the issue in the long run, but whether any country/society is capable of generating enough wealth to flow to every strata of society.
I don't know if its different in english speaking countries, but personal and private property is the same shit as I was taught.
>Your house is personal property.
You just can sell it, trade it, or decide where you live.
It's the American way of life, they want to change their house every 5 years, around the time it needs to be "renovated" - because painting a couple of rooms is too much of a bother.
So the American middle class out of laziness will willingly give up the right to own it's homes. Ironic as it is.
There is no such differentiation in communist manifestos. Dispossession is basic commie behavior.
>but personal and private property is the same shit as I was taught.
well you were taught wrong.
Yeah nah, its actually the same shit if you consider language differences. Also legally personal and private are synonyms.
>Concentration of capital is not the issue in the long run, but whether any country/society is capable of generating enough wealth to flow to every strata of society.
If it has any public regulation mechanism, it's no longer a free market. Also, flowing the market with money only fix financial crisis (and not really works).
This, 99% of the time "Socialism" in America refers to just taxes or programs that are basically taxes to give a service I.e ACA/Obamacare. Or universal healthcare.
But I didn't say otherwise user.
>I don't know if its different in english speaking countries, but personal and private property is the same shit as I was taught.
It's not. It's taught to be the same so people is convinced that possessing a bank is as legitimate as possessing a house or possessing the clothes you wear.
>fighting over "Muh Pure Socialism" vs "Muh Pure Capitalism"
>Not taking Social Democracy
Do you even New Deal Bern, pleb?
I obviously meant can't.
It's "personal" property in the same way your room in your parent's place is your personal property, but replace parents with "the collective".
You can decorate it with posters and shit but as soon as you get out of line they'll take the locks off the door, or send you to the gulag. You don't want to piss off the collective, or it's perpetual leader in most cases.
>Social Democracy
Why talk about the shit we (and by that I mean pretty much everyone really) live in at he moment. It's obviously not working.
>fat people get healthcare I pay for with my taxes
>even though they've personally chosen to shorten their lifespan with their lifestyle
>same with smokers, drinkers, potheads and other junkies
Nice... This sure is fair.
Social democracy is for "clever" fags who think they can cherrypick from both sides and call it a day.
youtube.com
Communists, basically.
Yeah and the line is clearly defined.
As soon as you use that property to "work" for you (renting), it's not longer a personal property.
As long as you live on it, no one can bother you.
>As long as you live on it, no one can bother you.
Unless when they can.
Because there are always exceptions.
I want to spill my semen into Shinoa until she has my child.
>As long as you live on it, no one can bother you.
Sure, until the government decides you can't at your inconvenience.
Well, this picture isn't representative because China actually has private property laws. In a communism you'd just be kicked out.
...
Check my 6' Sup Forums.
For I am your Emperor and this is my Empress.
Roll
60 or bust.
roll
Same with capitalism then. If your house is on a place where the government is planning to build something, you also get fucked.