/hobby/ - Hobby

bumping. will post pdfs later

that shit is manipulative af. It’s useful at least for identifying manipulative tactics used against you. Read it, but for identify other people who are actively using the techniques listed

>>19090
This but I think if you're like autistic or something the book might be useful for understanding social dynamics a little better. A lot of the advice boils down to "it's not what you know but who you know" and "people respond well to being treated well" but in more detail.

Crucial conversations

>>19090
Yeah, but it's like any sales book, it's all manipulation. Consent means nothing, no means nothing, but it's used so one should be familar with it.

I had an autistic buddy who spent about a year reading texts like this and other sales ones. The result was he started getting laid regularly, BUT there was always something iffy about the consent part.

Anyway, yes, I encourage reading texts like these because it helps you identify manipulators, people with low self esteem, and aspergers.

>>19105
have anything that's not so mucho texto? have a hard time believing there's 183 pages worth of good content in 'the charisma myth'.

The Unique and Its Property is the best "self help" book you need.

I've also heard good things about Atomic Habits.

If you catch my drift.

>>19107
> to feel happier
It might help with this.
> and be a more productive member of society
But not with this, for sure.

fuck society, were living in a hostile regime behind enemy lines I hope it burns down

https://medium.com/@dolessforpeace/insurgent-heart-a-vipassana-manual-for-the-guerrilla-yogi-0-81b0f998f072

sick ass guide to meditation that treats your psyche like the plains of a guerilla war, has loads of quotes from the IRA and Mao. Plus some genuinely great advice for meditation

>>19088
>be leftist
>realize leftism is fruitless and leads to nowehere and self destruction
>read self help book from mega capitalist because leftism failed you
top kek. the cognitive dissonance is real

>>19105
>>19106
I would be interested in the charisma book too or something similar.

>>19317
it's either sell out or retreat into mysticism and spiritualism. which way, lefty man?

>>19317
>Being leftist is to reject everything from the past
read Marx and learn what dialectical materialism dictates in social progression. Socialism is not replacing capitalism, it progresses FROM capitalism, just as capitalism progressed from Feudalism

>>19440
>Socialism is not replacing capitalism
yeah it is.
>it progresses FROM capitalism
so in other words what you TRULY are saying, is replacing capitalism with a different system? just look at this entire board. does anyone say anything positive about capitalism? all of leftism is about replacing capitalism. thats the central principle, to oppose capitalism.

that being said its pretty funny because if your ideas worked so well, then why dont they work? didnt work for op, so he turned to some mega capitalist book for actual advice. this is just common sense.

>>19452
No it isn't replacing it wholesale, socialism is a progression of society wherein aspects of Capitalism and culture remain but others are discarded because they no longer fit the dialectics.

>if your ideas worked so well, then why dont they work?
They have and do work, which is why people in the USA today have any concept of Healthcare or Education or clean water and other important amenities. Moreover dialectical progression is not something that's an instant fix-it you idiot, do you think Capitalism just took over and worked instantly? Capitalism failed repeatedly for centuries as it struggled to usurp the system it was succeeding, because it was not in the interest of Kings and Lords to cede their power to merchants, but as society progressed, so too did the needs of the society and these feudal systems were forced to make concessions, becoming capitalist, especially as capitalist Revolutions arose, such as the French and American Revolutions. As for the OP - when in Rome d as the Romans do - you cannot expect to be wholly contrary to the entire system when you have nothing by which to support yourself with.

The reason leftism opposes Capitalism is because at this point in human progress it has become inefficient and immoral, and so economically and socially unacceptable.
>does anyone say anything positive about capitalism?
Why would we? It's not about "muh positivity" it's about logic. Sure we praise socialism positively, but that's because we're human and not machines and so obviously we discuss the immediate human benefits of socialism which equal or supercede Capitalism - mostly because the average joe is interested in the immediate material benefits they may get to better the lives of themselves and their progeny.

>>19459
>No it isn't replacing it wholesale
they why do you guys want to "bring down capitalism" lol this board is about communism.

>They have and do work
no socialist or marrxist country was ever able to match free markets economically and in the terms of standards of living for the average person. look at america, america has one of the highest HDI's in the entire world yet you guys want a system similar where you would undoubtedly be poorer in terms of actual tangible goods and services and have less choice.

>it has become inefficient and immoral, and so economically and socially unacceptable.
>>does anyone say anything positive about capitalism?
>Why would we?
but you just contradict yourself right here. if there is nothing positive you have to say about capitalism, then why would you want to retain any of it? you would have no reason to because you just there is no single positive thing you have to say about it. you just said it was immoral and unacceptable. do you keep something you deem unacceptable? by literal definition, NO because you just said it cannot be accepted. you guys dont make alot of sense.

>>19466
>why do you guys want to "bring down capitalism"
Because most of the superstructure that is inherent to capitalism has no worth and should be brought down and removed, like the shed-skin of a snake - removing parasites and blemished from itself.
>no socialist or marrxist country was ever able to match free markets economically
Except that the Warsaw Pact countries and USSR were in the top lists of HDI, GNP and more for their entire existences, and after socialism left those countries, they dramatically dropped in human development.
Numerous economic studies, including secret ones by the CIA found that socialist economics grew more steadily and at faster rates than capitalist countries, and had higher standards of living compared to capitalist countries of equal levels of development.
>merica has one of the highest HDI's in the entire world
America's HDI is horrendous for a First-World Country, the fuck are you on about?
>goods
The USSR ate more calories than the USA since the 70s and as on par with the USA since the mid 50s despite having suffered enormously from WW-2, while the USA only profited. As for "muh choice" The only choices you have in capitalism are token choices between the same artificial and over-priced products being repackaged and sold under different brand names owned by the same few companies.
>why would you want to retain any of it?
Nothing exclusive to capitalism is worth praising, and the rest of what exists under capitalism that isn't exclusive to it, isn't something it can take credit for. As for why use anything that exists under capitalism? To use an analogy, when repairing and improving a ship, you don't build it up from scratch, you remove portions that are decayed, outdated or unnecessary and replace where needed. Society changes and progresses, rises and falls, but it remains society.

regardless if you're quite done being disingenuous about your understanding of capitalism, I suggest you continue your line of argument in >>>/leftypol/, where this debate belongs, cheerio lad.

>>19088
Getting familiar with logic, its actually really mentally helpful

>>19468
so basically you want to remove capitalism, this is the only possibility because socialism and communism are entirely different systems. this is sort of irrefutable.

>Nothing exclusive to capitalism is worth praising
so therefore you want to replace it

>the rest of what exists under capitalism that isn't exclusive to it
so therefore you want to replace capitalism

>higher standards of living compared to capitalist countries of equal levels of development.
laughable but also consider that capitalist countries were also significantly more developed than socialist ones, which negates this entire premise. imagine waiting 10 years in line for a refrigerator or car that was a copy of a western design from 20 or 30 years ago meanwhile western consumer goods had advanced significantly past that stage. compare car ownership rates in capitalist vs communist countries for example too if you want to say "nobody could afford a car".


>America's HDI is horrendous for a First-World Country, the fuck are you on about?
nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

the rest of your post is complete nonsense.
>the warsaw pact had higher hdi than the west
lmao the ussr had to import food from the west because they couldnt produce it. idk what planet you live on.

>>19471
This is becoming a circular argument
>But U want [x] *proceeds to ignore the context of what was said*
>Muh replace
If you can't comprehend what is being without belittling it into inane strawmen, I can't help you; Elementary school however is a good start.
>laughable
Tell that to the CIA
>capitalist countries were also significantly more developed
Because, ya know, they pillaged, colonized or otherwise robbed Third-World countries and treated their own workers abysmally for centuries during the Industrial Revolutions to amass the Capital they had while the Soviet Union and other Socialist countries arose in the aftermath of Civil Wars or Revolutions striving to overthrow colonizers, imperialists and others? And funny how Capitalism is so great, yet every country of the former Soviet Union has been in shit since they adopted "Capitalism".

The USSR went from a medieval-tier agrarian economy where the majority of people didn't know how to red or write, to a Super-Power that competed with the USA in every aspect, all within a decade of industrialization, and without the use of Child Labour, slaves, or imperialist colonies. They achieved nearly 100% literacy within a few years, doubled life expectancy in that same time frame and all while recovering from a Civil War + WW1 and a post-war famine. No shit the USSR wasn't perfect, that's not the argument, the argument is that
>muh choices
consumerist bullshit, 90% of your choices are inane
>muh waiting lists
Not for food and for cars you only had a waiting list if you wanted it for free, if you bought it you'd get it upfront, not to mention as a premium reward for being an upstanding worker and citizen.
>10 years wait
literally never happened
>copy of western
more inane strawmen
Not for the majority of products, those that were 'copies' were mundane things; what's the point of redesigning something when it's already created. Not to mention that Western countries ripped each other off constantly, Japan, the USA, Britain and France constantly took designs for products from one another resold them under new names, so get off your high-horse.
>Muh car ownership
It was lower because the USSR had excellent public transport, so only people who NEEDED cars used them.
>muh capitalist ownership
Until the past decades Cars did not come with A/C, heaters and other standard features (including seat-belts) unless you paid extra for them and lower-quality versions were made specifically for poor people, so yeah 'everyone' could buy a car… just not everyone got the same ability to buy a good one… and everyone as forced to use a car because Car companies literally lobbied to remove a lot of the public-transit infrastructure in the USA. So yeah, nice stuff innit?
>Wikipedia
>HDI
USA is not even close to a good result do you understand what First World means? Or did you think that the USA looking good compared to less-developed countries is a good benchmark?
>the ussr had to import food from the west
Actually they had to import food during the late 70s to 90s because they were also exporting food products and feeding those countries that could not produce their own food (being in cold climates or mountainous areas or otherwise unable to have balanced food production. The remaining food went to the population at prices far below that of the Western world. Your "muh food" meme is yet another example of poor education taking 'facts' out of context for childishly attempted "gotcha" moments Britain's Ham and eggs came from Soviet Poland for over a decade.

Also
>this reddit spacing
>these strawman memes about "muh soshulizm"
Sorry, I meant, that you should be going to >>>/siberia/, /leftypol/ is too mature for you.

>>19473
>This is becoming a circular argument
its not, youre just wrong.

>Tell that to the CIA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_grain_embargo_against_the_Soviet_Union

>Because, ya know, they pillaged, colonized or otherwise robbed Third-World countries
the industrial revolution didnt steal advancements from the third world otherwise the industrial revolution would have happened there.

>The USSR went from a medieval-tier agrarian economy where the majority of people didn't know how to red or write, to a Super-Power that competed with the USA in every aspect
the ussr was for the most part behind the usa in every aspect. also your argument is based on a fallacy, its neglecting any baseline to compare your progress to. would they have industrialized faster under a free market? almost certainly, look at the industrial revolution.

>consumerist bullshit, 90% of your choices are inane
>your choices dont matter
another reason why nobody wanted to be a part of that system

>literally never happened
yeah it did.

>USA is not even close to a good result do you understand what First World means
go take the average of all first world countries abiding by the archaic 3 worlds classification system and compare that number to USA.

then go take the average of all second world countries and compare that average to the first world ones. link is here >>19471

>Actually they had to import food during the late 70s to 90s because they were also exporting food products and feeding those countries that could not produce their own food
ultimate cope. the ussr stripped whatever it could from its satellite states. so youre saying neither the ussr nor its satellites could feed themselves? this is true, you had to wait in lines for bread and toilet paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_Soviet_Union
>The last, 12th Five-Year Plan that fell within the perestroika period ended with uncontrolled economical degradation, resulted in part in various ways of rationing in all Union republics.

>>19475
>More reddit spacing
>N-no Ur rong
>more third-source wikipedia garbage
>industrial revolution didnt steal advancements
No, it stole resources, capital and labour. The USSR didn't steal either, they bought licensed copies of basic things they didn't have as starting capital, then created their own, buying tractors and licenses does not account for the growth (several hundred factories built per year in former wildernesses.
>otherwise the industrial revolution would have happened there
Are you actually this dumb or just playing?
>the ussr was for the most part behind the usa in every aspect.
Yes so behind that until the Manned moon landings the USSR's Space achievements were ahead of the USAs, so behind that they were the first to use numerous technologies that were introduced into the USA decades later, the first to pioneer heart, lung, and other organ transplants. But yeah because you have 10 different kinds of cheetos, everything is better in the USA… ya know except the fact that healthcare here is worse than in fucking Cuba, where HIV medication is cheap as grocery shopping. I kinda value that over having nebulous consumerist "freedoms" that aren't freedoms at all.
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Soviet-economy-work-at-all/answer/Chuck-Garen
>fallacy
No YOUR argument is a fallacy
>neglecting a type of "control"
Imagine having such a double-standard.
I'm not going to explain repeatedly why you're wrong in every regard
>would they have industrialized faster under a free market?
<totally yesh
They HAD a freemarket, it was called NEP and in 10 years it had shit results. The USA and UK took 100 years of industrialization and at the cost of millions of lives at minimum. Do you think chattel slavery was done for kicks? That child labour laws and education requirements and the FDA arrived because of the goodness of Capitalism? Hell no, they arrived because workers started to riot and strike and strikebreaking Pinkertons murdering and crippling their leaders failed to stop this, so they made concessions to these Unions, whose movements were leftist. Everything from Public transport, to healthcare to public education is thanks to leftism, and more importantly the existence of the USSR which forced the USA to start providing genuine state welfare and market regulations or run the risk of having a communist revolution on their hands. And in the 80s when regulations were removed wages plummeted, HDI plummeted and living conditions plummeted, even the economy slowed down and the only thing keeping it afloat was the constant slew of wars conflicts and the other shit that keeps alive the Military-Industrial Complex.
>Look at the Industrial Revolution
I have, and I am disgusted. People lived in conditions that were WORSE than in their days as plumb-nothing farmers, dying slowly in the dirty, smoky cramped barracks they lived in.
>your choices dont matter
Nice strawman fallacy faggot. If your choices aren't real then there is no point to them, is there?
<nobody wanted to be a part
Survey says your wrong, see the numerous polls and pic related
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Mikhail-Gorbachev-seek-to-reform-the-Soviet-society/answer/Chuck-Garen

>yeah it did
Nope
>the archaic 3 worlds classification
Nice goal-post shifting, cope harder
>the average of all second world countries
LOL nice fallacy, comparing the USA to countries that under capitalism are worse off than they were under socialism as per economic fact, Kek. In 1990 (one of the worst years of the USSR), the Soviet Union had a Human Development Index of 0.920, placing it in the "high" category of human development. It was the third-highest in the Eastern Bloc at 105, behind Czechoslovakia and East Germany (110), and the 25th in the world of 130 countries. The USA was in spot 112, literally 7 spots awway, the Number one spot was held by Japan, who after WW-2 adopted the Soviet system of planned economic development while having generous US funding. Ironically it was after 1990 that Japan decided to privatize its industries and its economy started to fall apart in what is now called The Lost Decades.
>I'm not coping ur coping
>The ussr stripped whatever it could from its satellite states
That's exactly the opposite of what it did you actual idiot, it's well known among economic circles that the USSR expended massive resources supporting its "satellite states" with food and other necessities that they lacked the land to grow.
>neither the ussr nor its satellites could feed themselves
See my source, even the CIA says that's false, but hey who are the CIA compared to might of some anon with memes!
>muh bread lines
Made up meme from the POST-Soviet 90s, cope harder
Pic 2 related

>>19478
>wikipedia
Again see source, your garbage articles aren't worth dogshit, especially since, post-WW2 the USSR stopped rationing food before the UK and France did.

gentlemen

I appreciate your enthusiasm but this kind of discussion belongs on /leftypol/ or /edu/, please take it there.

>>19481
Thanks
also that "Gentlemen"

>>19480
the one image you have about waiting in line invalidates your entire argument. in one picture, people are waiting for bread because there are food shortages due to system of central planning. on the other people are waiting outside for the release of the latest iphone so they can be the first people to have such a luxury good that nobody in a communist nation such as the ussr had. those are 2 entirely different situations. false equivalence fallacy. one is necessity, the other is choice.

>Yes so behind that until the Manned moon landings the USSR's Space achievements were ahead of the USAs
i did say for the most part. both sides space program was based on german science and scientists captured in ww2. us still beat ussr to the moon, stealth aircraft, higher standard of living (no bread shortage) etc.

>The USA and UK took 100 years of industrialization
thats not true. but you need to understand that the UK INVENTED the industrial revolution. other nations that industrialized later just aquired the existing technology. make sure you thank UK, they invented it all.

also JSYK you should also understand that the industrial revolution in capitalist countries, despite the living and working conditions (nobody ever had done this yet) resulted in the greatest increase in wealth in human history.

>the Soviet Union had a Human Development Index of 0.920
according to who? the ussr? higher HDI than america despite people standing in breadlines, not having cars or vcr players? in 1990 americans were using the internet and computers. apple and microsoft were a thing.

>muh bread lines
>Made up meme
>shows picture of one
kek

>your garbage articles aren't worth dogshit
>usies quora as a source
ultimate kek

>post-WW2 the USSR stopped rationing food
is this from quora too?(I asked nicely)

>>19487
>the one image you have about waiting in line invalidates your entire argument. in one picture, people are waiting for bread because there are food shortages due to system of central planning. on the other people are waiting outside for the release of the latest iphone so they can be the first people to have such a luxury good that nobody in a communist nation such as the ussr had. those are 2 entirely different situations. false equivalence fallacy. one is necessity, the other is choice.
Is this dude too retarded to even read the rest of the image LMAO

>>19452
>didnt work for op, so he turned to some mega capitalist book for actual advice
op here and just feel like I need to mention that I used the Dale Carnegie book as an example is because it is a pretty famous self-help book which is what this thread is about.