I want to learn more about post capitalism, /lit/, where do I

>>8824811
Wealth of Nations
Das Kapital
Economics in One Lesson
General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
Capitalism and Freedom
What is to be Done?
Unabomber Manifesto
The Pure Theory of Capital
This Changes Everything

The list covers most of the major perspectives on capitalism, and understanding of which seems like a prerequisite to reading about post-capitalism.

>>8824811

Ignore the first response unless you want to funnel yourself into traditional marxist irrelevance. Post-capitalism in this century will be based on evolutionary, network and/or complexity economics. TED-talk tier intros include Jeremy Rifkin and Cesar Hidalgo.

>>8825037
>>8824964
I'd love to learn more about capitalism and ideologies overall desu got any tips on where to start

>>8825037
>traditional marxist irrelevance

Marxists are the guys who give you the term capital at all, doofus. Maybe they're not germane to the conversation today - or, more accurately, because you don't like Marxists yourself, and we both know this is true, b/c otherwise why would you be so dismissive? - but it is pretty ridiculous to tell this anon not to read it.

anon: i want to learn about the roman empire
other anon: you should read romans
you: ignore traditional roman irrelevance. read renaissance historians instead, they know the deal

ffs

File: ted cuckd.jpg (66KB, 458x490px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 458x490px

>>8824811
there's no such thing, capital is cancerous and has totally submerged everything already
anarcho-primitivism is the only real hope of resistance

>>8825037
>Post-capitalism in this century will be based on evolutionary, network and/or complexity economics
mere buzzwords just masking more intense despotic forms of control and growth of capital

>>8825336
>or, more accurately, because you don't like Marxists yourself, and we both know this is true, b/c otherwise why would you be so dismissive?

There's lots of marxists I like and I'm sympathetic to marxism's moral aims but frankly, the suggestion that neoclassical econ is going to die and be replaced by even older theories is absurd. If radicalism wants to be relevant again, it needs to be grounded in modern criticisms.

>>8825373
>mere buzzwords just masking more intense despotic forms of control and growth of capital

True maybe of network economics but reveals complete ignorance of the others.

>>8824811
search Technological Unemployment in google.

>>8824811

read this
https://www.amazon.com/Race-Against-Machine-Accelerating-Productivity/dp/0984725113/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481410630&sr=1-1&keywords=race+against+the+machine

read this
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Robots-Technology-Threat-Jobless/dp/0465097537

>>8825336
People that boast about having invented terms are so sad.

Basically, Luddites were right and Marx was partially wrong.

>>8824811
There is no post capitalism. That's like saying post hunger, or post thought.

>>8825999

unshaven man meme

>>8825999
Post-capitalism is a word which implies certain connotations, so yes it is a thing.>>8825971

>>8826021
Nope.

>>8826029
Nope.

>>8826116
>>8825999

>thinks all commerce is capitalism

In 2 trash

>>8825970
Hey, you know what? You - you -

...you're *right.* So I apologize for being crusty. Having crawled through no small amount of Marxist theory I actually *like* neoclassical econ today and I genuinely do think it's the way to go. Plus you get bonus points for responding to me like an adult instead of being childish. So well played all round anon. Not even upset to say that sometimes /lit/ still surprises me.

>>8825970

Now that I'm in a nice mood, I'll respond to this more kindly than usual. I'm not boasting about having invented the term: the Marxists did. And I'm not even boasting about their having invented it either, just that I felt it was germane to OP's question and anon's response to it.

I mean, if I *was* Marx, I would be boasting about it. Don't get it twisted. But as I said, I am mainly in agreement with that anon above.

Whoops.

>>8826138 (top part)
meant for
>>8825430

>>8826125
Commerce can't really exist without real private property rights. The antagonism of buyers and sellers is what creates rational prices. Otherwise we don't know the real value of things, so these things are arbitrarily traded. TLDR: democracy is stupid.

>>8826143
>Commerce can't really exist without real private property rights

Burden is now on you to explain all the commerce that happened before that concept emerged in the renaissance.

>TLDR: democracy is stupid

Does not follow

>>8826150
Private property has existed since the beginning of agriculture.

You're not inclined to make a rational decision when you're spending someone else's money.

>>8826161
>Private property has existed since the beginning of agriculture.

Don't embarrass yourself now by claiming divine right was private property

>>8826161
but capitalism relies on private property rights and regulated trade

how could it exist before either of these did

>>8826171
Its not divine right. Individuals owned their own farms since the beginnings of time. Ie private property.

>>8826172
By owning your own farm.

And capitalism doesn't require regulated trade. The exact opposite actually.

>>8826175
>he doesn't know about priest-king central redistribution systems
Do you even anthropolgy?

>>8826177
so if one kid trades his rock for another kid's rock, you're claiming this is an example of capitalism at work?

>>8826175

"No"

>>8826184
The extent in which the state controlled a country, in the past, was diminished in the past. There were some places, like south east Asia, for example, there the state only had control of a few cities.

>>8826185
Sure.

>>8826186
Yep.

File: 1276738823745.jpg (27KB, 350x468px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x468px

>"post" capitalism

No amount of mental gymnastics will help you overcome the economic calculation problem but feel free to waste your time attempting to

>>8826192
>Yep.

Is feudalism denial going to be the hot meme in 2017?

>>8826192
>it's another ideological history post
no thanks
(You)

>>8826197
I'm not denying feudalism...

>>8826208
You're the one blinded by ideological, buddy.

>>8826210
You're literally denying that land belonged to royalty by divine right and was held but not owned by landholders and worked by propertyless serfs, ie feudalism

>>8826214
fug i got trolled
:DDDD

>>8826196
>economic calculation problem
worst meme ever
had some substance in the 20s before modern IT but some input-output analysis on a super computer is a lot less impressive than google spidering trillions of webpages every second

>>8826215
In certain parts of the world, sure. And certain parts of history, sure.

>>8826222
> lost argument
> starts spouting nothingness

>>8826224
You don't understand the argument.

>>8826234
>In certain parts of the world, sure. And certain parts of history, sure.

So now explain why there was commerce in these times and places, when capitalism did not exist.

>>8826161
Good god you libertarian robots are the worst recyclers of the same phrases, fucking over and over. You all sound the same.

>>8824811
Postcapitalism is some stupid shit. From what I have briefly read about this idea, it says that technological change will create a huge reduction in the need for labor in society, everyone will be on UBI, and so on. This is really not postcapitalism, because production for profit still exists, and private property, in particular intellectual property, still exists. I think a more likely outcome of technological change is that people under the 90th percentile in IQ become unemployable, and the ruling class, tiring of caring for them and capable of enforcing their property rights without the State, leaves them to fend for themselves while establishing something resembling Communism in super-advanced city-states.

>>8826196
You're saying we're limited to understanding markets exactly as well as someone in 1820, or 1920 did? It baffles me how regressive and status-quo clinging pro market stooges are.

>>8826240
Private property did exist.

>>8826242
The same can be said about any political group. But libertarians are by far the least guilty of this.

>>8826259
You don't understand the argument.

>>8826234
>You don't understand the argument.
Well Mises's whole notion that there can be no scientific account of human needs but only of consumer preference is bullshit to begin with but beyond that you're left with the real issue of technological constraints which can be approached.

>>8826270
You don't understand the argument. By the way, "bullshit" is not an argument.

File: 1456185446603.gif (965KB, 300x297px) Image search: [Google]

965KB, 300x297px

>>8824811
>post capitalism

>>8826267
>Private property did exist.

Property but not privacy, in the medieval there were all kinds of local laws requiring people to own or not own certain things.

>>8826267
>he thinks "libertarian" is an ideology
can there be a general consensus to just ban americans like these from this board

>>8826277
The basic issues surrounding coordination is just a technological issue but the whole ontological mystique of the market and "price signals" somehow effectively signalling what's actually wanted is bullshit when the only manner to provide signals is constrained by spending power so the things produced and consumed end up in no way reflecting what's really wanted, aggregate demand is never real demand.

>>8825430
>neoclassical econ

please give a neoclassical account of conflict in which more resources are destroyed than either side stands to gain.

>>8826297
Yes it was. If anything for the nobles.

>>8826301
Do you really think that is a substantive argument?

>>8826321
It being linked to spending power is exactly why it creates the *rational* coordination that it does. Only when you're willing to sacrifice something is your decision to take something truly rational. We can't, and can never, make everything that everyone wants. I want 7000 Elizabeth Olsen clones, I want Game of Thrones to have been written by William Faulkner, and so on. There are limits to consumption, so there should be limits to demand, and only through money and the price system is this possible.

>>8826375
>It being linked to spending power is exactly why it creates the *rational* coordination that it does. Only when you're willing to sacrifice something is your decision to take something truly rational. We can't, and can never, make everything that everyone wants. I want 7000 Elizabeth Olsen clones, I want Game of Thrones to have been written by William Faulkner, and so on. There are limits to consumption, so there should be limits to demand, and only through money and the price system is this possible.

I'm claiming quite the opposite, under a price system you end up with very irrational outcomes with most people consuming pure garbage and damaging themselves as a result, most of the time not because they wanted to but because it was all they could afford to do.
Those who consume the most do not sacrifice the most, those who consume little are who make it possible for those who do consume the most to do so.
If there are serious limits to consumption like you are claiming we should know what they are and be honest about it. Who should dictate what to produce and get to consume those scarce resources and why?

>>8824811
>Post-capitalism
No such thing. In case you haven't heard, history has ended that means capitalist, liberal democratic human is the the last form of human.
It only exists in the imagination of leftist hoi poloi.

>>8826407
Cool, and your claim is false.

>>8826499
I agree with you, but that's still one step away from the final stage of humanity. Stateless capitalism is the final state. Democracy is the enemy of liberty.

File: vfblog-nickland1.jpg (62KB, 580x386px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 580x386px

There is no 'post-capitalism'. There is only post-humanism via capitalism.