/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.945988]

Recommend anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-leftist, anti-statist books if you would, please.

[Anonymous No.945994]

[Anonymous No.945997]

you should do the smart thing and read pro-communist books

[Anonymous No.945998]

>>945994
Thinking more quality..

[Anonymous No.946002]

>Quality literature
>Right-wing fanaticism

Choose one.

[Anonymous No.946004]

It's everything you wanted except anti-socialist/statist.

[Anonymous No.946014]

>>945997
I've read the Communist Manifesto, Capital, Communism and Property, Socialism or Barbarism, and some popular stuff by Harvey and Zizek. Anything specific and why?

[Anonymous No.946021]

I can do that, but I can't recommend any good ones.

[Anonymous No.946035]

EIMI
by E.E. Cummings

The Rebel
by Albert Camus

An Ethic Superior to Murder
by Albert Camus

Human, All Too Human
by Friedrich Nietzsche

Walden
by Henry David Thoreau

The Conduct of Life
by Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Anonymous No.946036]

>>946014
You've read all of Capital??? But have only read a few other titles outside of it? Damn, you jumped in at the deep end.

[Anonymous No.946044]

>>946036
I'm an economist. Capital was pretty easy to read, and easy to debunk.

[Anonymous No.946298]

Silly Americans, the era of art, music, freedom and ascending is coming.
Soon humanity will live in freedom, except the USA because your people love your slavery which you call freedom even though your definition of freedom is just oppression.

[Anonymous No.946313]

>>945994
Oh look Glenn Beck used a Я from the Cyrillic alphabet instead of a R.
I'm stunned, he's a freaking mastermind!

[Anonymous No.946324]

>>946035
Thoreau was against EVERY state, does not count as anti-left therefor.

[Anonymous No.946325]

Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek. Or Constitution of Liberty by him as well

[Anonymous No.946326]

>>946044
>exploitation
>debunked

huh??

[Anonymous No.946528]

>>946326
Different anon. Exploitation theory is premised on the labor theory of value which is demonstrably false.

[Anonymous No.946532]

>>946528
LABOR IS USELESS
SLAVERY IS GOOD
HURF DURF

[Anonymous No.946536]

[Anonymous No.946537]

>>946528
There's also the issue of wage slavery.

[Anonymous No.946544]

>>946532
What? Uh no.. the labor theory of value (specifically the Marxist one) posits that value is determined the number of socially necessary labor hours put into something. This is supposed to be derived from subjective use-vale.

Labor is not *necessarily* or *uniformly* useful. Imagine you labored for 6 hours making a beautiful mud pie. Meanwhile I labored for 6 hours fixing up a car. You labor would be effectively useless, while mine would have been much more useful. This is nothing inherent in the nature of labor or the items themselves, but rather in the intersubjective demand for goods.

[Anonymous No.946546]

>>946537
The normative concept of wage slavery is premised on exploitation theory which is in turn premised on the demonstrably wrong LTV.

[Anonymous No.946547]

>>946004
Mein Kampf is definitely pro-Statist, but don't believe for a second that it holds anything but hatred towards Socialism.

[Anonymous No.946548]

I pity you.

[Anonymous No.946549]

>>946546
Er... no, the concept of Wage Slavery is completely independent of the Labour Theory of Value.

[Anonymous No.946551]

The Mind of the Market, Micheal Shermer
Socialism, Ludwig von Mises
Animal Farm, George Orwell (I know he called himself a democratic socialist,)

[Anonymous No.946554]

On the anti-statist side, "Days of War, Nights of Love" from Crimethinc. Primer for anarchist thought in the modern world.

[Anonymous No.946558]

>>946549
The neo-Marxist conception of wage slavery is explicitly dependent on the labor theory of value. Other conceptions of "wage slavery" are either dependent on some objectivist theory of value or else nothing more than manipulative language.

[Anonymous No.946559]

[Anonymous No.946564]

>>946559
not anti-statist

[Anonymous No.946567]

>>946558
>they disagree with my normative judgment
>baww manipulation of language

[Anonymous No.946568]

@OP

Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
As anti-{all that shit you said} as any book gets.

[Anonymous No.946572]

[Anonymous No.946576]

>>946567
If "wage slavery" were merely presented as an entirely normative, subjective value judgement, you'd have a point. It's not.

[Anonymous No.946577]

[Anonymous No.946581]

>>946577
not anti-statist...

[Anonymous No.946588]

[Anonymous No.946593]

[Anonymous No.946596]

>anti-statist

[Anonymous No.946603]

[Anonymous No.946607]

By far the best of these is The Rebel
Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Escape From Leviathan: Liberty, Welfare, and Anarchy Reconciled
The Road to Serfdom

[Anonymous No.946608]

[Anonymous No.946613]

[Anonymous No.946661]

>>946544
This is one of the biggest misconceptions regarding the labour theory of value. If you'd read Capital carefully you'd realize that a 6 hour mud pie has no use -value, and further is not rare at all (anyone can make a mud pie). To use another example, you may be able to find a piece of gold in a river with no labour and yet it still has value, the reason is ON AVERAGE it take quite a bit of labour to seek out and extract a piece of god. The labour theory of value is based on the social average of labour necessary to produce a thing considered generally useful. Try harder economist.

[Anonymous No.946689]

ITT Propaganda.

[Anonymous No.946719]

Different econ-anon.
You should read Capital carefully actually. First few of Capital pages Marx writes:

"Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third [...] This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity."

So far so good, he is correct. Then Marx goes to add this:

"As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.
If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour."

EXPLAIN to me how the hell does he conjure labour out of this? He makes a mistake here. The only property left in his abstraction is NOT labour, but pure usevalue, or utility the neoclassical term.

[Anonymous No.946737]

>>946719
He conjures labour out of that because he has deliberately left aside the question of use value (qualities are by their nature non-commensurable) If you strip everything else away the only thing you have left is how much time/effort/rarity was involved in producing the object. Things that have value are products of labour, which is why a leaf has no value. It takes next to no labour to access them.

[Anonymous No.946739]

Since you guys are discussing the subject, can someone recommend a good introduction to economics for me?

I have a few general ideas in my head, but I'd like a solid (but not overly academic and esoteric) introduction to the subject.

[Anonymous No.946745]

>>946739
Micro or Macro? Commie or Fascist?

[Anonymous No.946755]

>>946739

The Worldly Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner.

or a History of Economic Thought book, theres a alot.

[Anonymous No.946766]

>>946745

If it could introduce to me both macro and microeconomic ideas (so that I have some context to actually understand the ideas) that would be nice.

If just one, though, I'd prefer macro, I guess. Also, please, no Austrians. I don't mind the idea of a strong, legitimately free free market, but I don't want to study something that would get me laughed out of the door anywhere off the internet (Chicago school is all right though).

[Anonymous No.946767]

>>946739

http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cm/m17/index.htm

[Anonymous No.946771]

>>946766
Ewwwwwwww...Chicago School? Really? They kill children in weird rituals.

[Anonymous No.946781]

>>946767
>>946755

Thanks, it's really appreciated.

[Anonymous No.946807]

>>946719
>So far so good, he is correct.

Are you crazy?

>The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other.

For the static equation x corn = y iron, that holds. As soon as you add time, there's no "third". The separate markets for corn and iron do not have a common underlying factor.

[Anonymous No.946811]

>>946807
Um....labour.

[Anonymous No.946819]

>>946811

Ignoring supply, demand, geography, human capital, and actual capital, yes. Labour.

[Anonymous No.946823]

no. utility!

[Anonymous No.946889]

>>946607
>>946719

>Escape From Leviathan: Liberty, Welfare, and Anarchy Reconciled

Fuck yes. This book is beautiful. It makes the vast majority of political philosophy obsolete via the knife of critical rationalism.

[Anonymous No.946903]

k.

[Anonymous No.946910]

>>946903
maybe that blue fucker should get a fucking job

[Anonymous No.946931]

>>946903

[Anonymous No.946946]

>>946903
Becoming truer by the day. The problem is people don't realize the guy with the tie is NOT a politician.

Capitalism and Communism share the same inate flaws. People only hate Communism and Socialism for the way the system has been abused. In theory it isn't evil, it simply is.

In comparison, Capitalism shares the same inherent issues, they're just on the opposite extreme. Simply building your ECONOMIC system to incentivize greed does not make it immune from an excess of such.

It should also be noted that the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality within this "debate" serves no purpose and only blinds people from giving anything an honest look in order to invent or adapt a new system that could potentially be better than either.

The people who are profiting from the current system, and fueling these "us vs them" tirades prefer you spending your energy rallying against cardboard "fascism" rather than actually sitting and thinking about HOW to improve things.

As long as you're sheep, they have nothing to fear while pulling your strings.

Dance, puppet. Dance.

[Anonymous No.946950]

>>946946
> People only hate Communism and Socialism for the way the system has been abused.

No. Read Nietzsche, then Camus.

[Anonymous No.946951]

>>946946
you're retarded. they're supposed to take into human nature, so when you say "they're not wrong, it's human nature that is wrong" you're being a fucktard on a pedestal

[Anonymous No.946957]

>>946910
maybe he has a job.

[Anonymous No.946959]

>>946951
No, what I'm saying is that avarice will win out and it is in human nature to seek the most he/she can attain. There is nothing wrong with that.

The problem lies when that person does so at the expense of all others.

It's essentially becomes a situation of might makes right, which leads to the destruction of any system.

Ultimately, without restraint it burns itself out and takes the system with it. No different from Communism in that sense ultimately.

[Anonymous No.946963]

>>946950
Camus was against totalitarianism. He spoke out against the Soviet Union because of the actions they were taking.

Again. An economic system is simply that, a system.

Communism is a very flawed system that was exploited at the expense of the people.

[Anonymous No.946967]

>>946959
ok, i see what you're saying, but it has more to do with human nature than a political system.

you sound like my anarchist friend.

[Anonymous No.946969]

Because everyone in this thread is pretty much clueless, I will recommend the OP stuff that is actually good.

The Law by Frederic Bastiat
The Politics of Obedience by Etiene de la Boetie
The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
Anything by Murry Rothbard
Capital and Interest by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
Principles of Economics by Carl Menger
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

[Anonymous No.946973]

>>946969

>hurr durr austrian economics lewrockwell.com ROOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN PAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

>and everyone who doesn't follow my insane philosophy just doesn't know what they're talking about or is paid off by the jews LOL

[Anonymous No.946979]

>>946967
Well it should be noted that Captialism and Socialism are ECONOMIC systems.

There are politics involved, but they are NOT the system of government.

For that you can break it down into Monarchies, Democracies, etc.

As far as Anarchism, I wouldn't consider myself an Anarchist. I believe Government is necessary and that they exist for the benefit of the people. Without Governments people lack the means to defend themselves and in many cases would lack many basic functions of modern life (like roads).

I'm more interested in seeing actual discussion and rational analysis rather than abject vilifying of others.

When people fall into an "Us vs Them" mentality they open themselves up to manipulation.

Or in short: "When someone starts talking about 'Good' and 'Evil' I make sure to keep one hand on my wallet."

[Anonymous No.946997]

>>946963
>Camus was against totalitarianism. He spoke out against the Soviet Union because of the actions they were taking.

That's a gross misreading.

[Anonymous No.946998]

>>946973
What the fuck are you talking about? Ron Paul is hardly even relevant to this discussion. What do the Jewish people have to do with this? Are you going to try to make a somewhat rational post or are you just going to greentext some bs nothings?

[Anonymous No.947008]

>>946979
>I believe Government is necessary and that they exist for the benefit of the people.

Government can exist without state, in fact, government is inherent.

>Without Governments people lack the means to defend themselves and in many cases would lack many basic functions of modern life (like roads).

It does not follow.

[Anonymous No.947010]

>>946998

>pretends to not know exactly what I meant

What a dumb shit.

[Anonymous No.947012]

>>946979
Generally I find that Anarchists may hold many similar reservations about the STATE of government...but the problem is their immediate answer is to abolish the government altogether!

It's kind of an overkill approach. Government is necessary, but that doesn't mean it cannot be improved.

[Anonymous No.947017]

Socialism is not simply an economic system. For Marxists, it represents the statist middle-stage between the exploitative capitalist state and the stateless communist society.

[Anonymous No.947024]

>>947008
>It does not follow.

Sure it does. Roads and transportation is managed by the state. Regulations and laws protect people from being taken advantage of and exploited (the entire point of copyright law for instance...however broken and outdated it is in the digital age). Armies protect nations from invasion by other nations.

Without a centralized government, you don't have these things. Without the structure there is NO foundation for ANYONE to prosper.

Isn't that the big underlying argument to the whole "freedom" thing? Freedom and opportunity to prosper?

[Anonymous No.947026]

>>947010
I don't sir. I never heard of any Jewish conspiracies. Conspiracies about what? Are you referring to some 9/11 conspiracy or something from that shitty movie zeitgeist? I think you are making some absurd assumptions, and I have never been to lewrockwell.com or whatever. You are just full of shit as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous No.947030]

>>947008


>government is inherent.


8/10, would rage again.

[Anonymous No.947035]

>>947024
private roads, mercenaries, etc etc

[Anonymous No.947038]

>>947030
It's impossible for government not to exist in the long run. If there was no government, sooner or later someone would take over and there would be government again.

[Anonymous No.947039]

>>947024
Sorry, but it does not follow. The state simply contracts out road work. There are private roads now. Plus following basic economic ideas of supply and demand roads would be created just fine. The only reason you seem to believe it would follow is because the state builds roads now. If the state had some monopoly on some other product, you would be arguing that it couldn't possibly exist without the state the same way you to do now with roads.

[Anonymous No.947043]

>>947035
Yes, because historically we've seen how well mercenaries work.

Now you're talking about private armies. The question then comes into play of who exactly will be PAYING these people? Without any form of Government, they're likely to be hired by one person, or at best a company (also run by one person) and will have no accountability or care for anyone else in the nation.

Mainly because at that point you won't have a nation. You'll have neo-feudal states.

[Anonymous No.947054]

>>947030
You just going to rage at facts? What do you think government is? It's not the state, the state is a form of government. Government happens none the less. Even Somalia after the state collapsed was still governed, just not by a state. Even chaos and destruction is governance, a governance of chaos and destruction.

[Anonymous No.947058]

You seem like a faggot, read Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.947069]

>>947043
When someone offers a service on a market, people who want that service will pay for it. If the person offering the service does so poorly, people will turn to someone else who offers the service. Basic economics. Supply, demand, competition.. you should learn about these things.

[Anonymous No.947078]

>>947069
Compared with state armies, mercenaries tend to be highly disloyal.

[Anonymous No.947085]

I always like how these request threads evolve into a big fuckfest.

[Anonymous No.947088]

>>947078
Hired fighters may indeed be less loyal in overseas affairs, but for protecting a society they are just as good as soldiers if they call that society home.

[Anonymous No.947092]

>>947085
It's because /lit/ is full or retards. OMG, you want a book not in line with my preferred economic system or my ideology? RAGE RAGE RAGE!@!@

[Anonymous No.947167]

>>946576
you are not reading political economy text from that period correctly. they don't subscribe to the strictly descriptive programme that mainstream marginalism developed, recently

[Anonymous No.947181]

Why have someone try to convince you of something you already believe?

[Anonymous No.947194]

>Why have someone try to convince you of something you already believe?

Not OP, but because it can show you flaws, pitfalls, and possibilities of your belief system you hadn't considered before? Because not all anti-statists on the right are the same, and seeing the variations can help you understand where you draw your lines? Because it can help you express your beliefs more succinctly and robustly to others?

[Anonymous No.947210]

Anti statism? Awesome
Anti leftism? Faggot.

Worker's self management & anarcho-syndicalism for the win.

[Anonymous No.947391]

ITT: High school freshman drawing anarchy symbols on everything they own.

[Anonymous No.947404]

Fucking communists.
GO BACK TO RUSSIA!

[Anonymous No.947430]

here ya go OP

[Anonymous No.947445]

>>947391
Read up on anarchist theory and different kinds of anarchism before you write it off like that.

[Anonymous No.947450]

>>947210
>>947210
>>947210
>>947210

[Anonymous No.947453]

>>947445
>defend something over the internet to look cool

So tell me, what are your thoughts on Max Stirner?

[Anonymous No.947498]

>>947404

We're not welcome there anymore. Too many skinheads.

[Anonymous No.947517]

>>947453
I don't get what you're getting at here. Stirner doesn't provide any workable framework for society so I focus on more practical strains of anarchism. If I wanted to just resign to nihilism for all my views of the world I'd be pretty bored.

[Anonymous No.947956]

Fucking colonialists.
GO BACK TO EUROPE!

[Anonymous No.947974]

>arguing politics and economics on 4chan
>herp derp