Do any of you know about some books written about Capitalism

>>9243150
Capitalists have everything.

>>9243150
What is Wealth of Nations!?

Capitalism isn't really a thing, let alone the capital C "Capitalism". You might be looking for a book on economics.

>>9243189
>Capitalism isn't really a thing
It turns things into merchandise. That's capitalism's thing.

>>9243219
Including books like >>9243150

>>9243230
What are you even trying to say?

>>9243150
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. I'd also check out anything by Rothbard

File: his econ reading list.png (497KB, 350x2738px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 350x2738px

Capitalism isn't an ideology like Marxism, it's the emergent phenomenon that occurs when people are allowed to control their own labor, income, and purchases in some varying degrees.

Economics is the study of this phenomenon. Pic related is the unofficial official unofficial /his/ economics reading list. Marxism is unempirical garbage and as such wouldn't be included in any serious academic listing, but this is 4chan so we can include it for completeness.

>>9243165
The Wealth of Nations warned about the contradictions of capitalism though. Adam Smith thought capitalism would be heavily regulated or replaced by something else. Capitalism was a weird phenomenon of the time and wasn't supposed to last forever and ever, as modern capitalists seem to think it should.

>>9243255
>Capitalism isn't an ideology
It's a particular economic system, so it has to be based on some ideological component.

>>9243255
>Capitalism isn't an ideology like Marxism, it's the emergent phenomenon

Being so deep in ideology you resort to a term like "emergent phenomenon" to describe a political philosophy

File: ideology2.png (398KB, 989x576px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 989x576px

>>9243255
>>9243272
>>9243276
Can we turn this into an ideology thread?

>>9243300
It already was but suit yourself, anon.

>>9243255
Marxism isn't an ideology, it's a social science. Capitalism has many ideologies (liberalism, neoliberalism, conservativism, praxeology, islamism, fascism, nazism, etc.) that reinforce it.

Capitalism didn't just come out of nowhere. It has the remnants of the old feudal society still with it. This isn't people in a state of nature agreeing to things. Capitalism is the domination of the business class. Relative to Feudalism, capitalism was a revolutionary force for good because it got rid of the royal and clerical rule, but in our modern society, it is the capitalists who are the new ruling class over an emerging working class.

Marxism is pure empiricism.
Capitalist ideologies like praxeology are abstract mathematical models of the world and actually are unempirical garbage.

>>9243150
Capitalism isn't a political ideology; it's a mode of production. Das Kapital is a book *about* capitalism by a communist, for example.

>>9243312
>it's a mode of production
Yes, it turns any thing into merchandise. But that doesn't mean capitalism is not a political ideology.

>>9243311
Well, that's true even though Feudalism was much much better than Capitalism.
>Marxism is pure empiricism. Capitalist ideologies like praxeology are abstract mathematical models of the world and actually are unempirical garbage
Right.

File: 79544.jpg (55KB, 700x532px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 700x532px

>>9243150

>>9243410
It depends what you mean by "better." Capitalism causes far more ecological damage and is a greater force for moral decadence, propaganda, racism, and imperialist wars.

But in terms of the actual relationship to the workers? I'd rather be a worker under Capitalism than a peasant farmer under Feudalism.

File: 1454823825181.png (72KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 557x605px

>>9243189
>this entire post

>>9243438
If you're referring to the worker's rights, I get you.
How many hours a day the peasant farmers used to work though?

>>9243311
Marxism is based in philosophical idealism, how is it empirical? It's a method to deal with an empirically understood world, but even then, we aren't entire sure of the world around us, and it's all but mere conjecture. I don't understand how one can honestly propose a proposition claiming Marxism as empirical. Good god I pray for this world.

>>9243548
>Marxism is based in philosophical idealism
Please explain.

>>9243449
My favorite Bartleby meme.

>>9243480
I'm not sure, but I think its been estimated like around 12 to 14?

>>9243548
>Marxism is based on philosophical idealism

Marx denounced and rejected most of Hegel. He was a materialist, not an idealist. However, he saw a small "kernel" of truth in Hegel's writing and thought of his ideas as the upside down and backwards version of Hegel's.

Read Mao's essay "On Contradiction" and you'll understand.

>Good god I pray for this world

You sound like you think you know a lot. You don't.

Rostow's 'The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto'

Not particularly relevant these days though.

>>9243276
I would imagine that the ideology associated with it would be liberalism.

Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe is what you're looking for.

>>9243724
Okay then I'd rather be a worker under Capitalism as well lol

why isnt Ayn Rand mentioned itt?

>>9244030
She was a retard and her "philosophy" is a joke

>>9244030
she never knew what she was talking about

>>9243276
>Capitalism: Mankind creates wealth through voluntary exchanges and homesteading property, which brings about a spontaneous order based on respect for each other's private property - PURE IDEOLOGY
>Communism: The proletariat will inevitably rise to power through a dictatorship because reasons (PURE EMPIRICISM LMAO) and will dissolve the state after destroying private property and bringing about public ownership for everyone - TOTALLY NOT AN IDEOLOGY, JUST PURE EMPIRICAL TRUTH

>>9243255
this is true but /lit/ just can't into this kind of thinking, they're all about ideologies

>>9243311
>pseudo-intellectual bullshit - the post

>>9244050
Don't get me wrong, they're both Ideologies. I don't buy any of this "Dialectical Materialism" bs about communism being some natural state.

I don't even see why couching something as "natural", "spontaneous", "emergent", or "scientific" means something isn't an ideology.

An ideology is a means to understand the world. Scientific Materialism/Positivism is an ideology. Maoism is an ideology. Democracy is an Ideology. Christianity is an ideology.

By believing any of these things, you see the world in a certain way.

There is literally no escaping ideology and this isn't a bad thing. It's just a matter of how aware you are of your own ideology, how much you realize that the world could be seen in different ways.

I think the essential problem with this thread is that no one wants their own belief system to be called an ideology. Get over it.

>>9244101
I think the wikipedia article nails it in the first sentence.

"Ideology is a collection of beliefs held by an individual, group or society."

It's nothing scary!

>>9244108
>>9244101
Well, I thought you were referring to the marxian concept of ideology, not the common sense one.

>>9244132
I'm not an expert on Marx, but from what I remember he defined Ideology as "social reproduction". A system of belief which perpetuates itself, a tradition.

He has a lot of theory on how an ideology becomes dominant (ruling class/working class, base/superstructure), but I don't think his concept veers off from the idea of Ideology as a collection of beliefs that shape how you understand the world.

>>9244071
for you

>>9244023
Not to say that capitalism isn't awful though. Third World workers get paid about 38 cents an hour and in horrible conditions, so they're pretty much parallel to the serfs of the feudal era.

Socialism and then communism is the answer, though, like capitalism and feudalism, these aren't the "final" answer. History keeps moving forward, and if someday there is something better than communists, our global communist society would have to move past our communist lifestyle to something else which allows for even more autonomy, equality, justice etc.

>>9244018

This, so hard. It's basically a book that takes capitalism to its logical extreme and applies it to society as a whole.

>>9244050
More like

>capitalism: the merchant class destroys the noble class and removes them from power through revolution and now use private property to retain power and exploit labor but lol this is all voluntary bro

>Communism: History can be best understood through the struggle of classes and changing methods of production. The development of agriculture, industrialization, and now globalization sure have changed the world haven't they? The relationship between the exploiters and the exploited will continue to shape the world and something new will eventually come out of capitalism just as something new came out of feudalism, tribalism, etc.

>>9244077
>doesn't disprove it

Nice rhetorical device, anon. You sure showed me. I have been exposed as a pseud.

>>9244101
>It's just a matter of how aware you are of your own ideology, how much you realize that the world could be seen in different ways.
thats the problem. one time you see your "ideology" from outside you can´t enter again with the same believe.
if your beliefs are open to change in any moment is not a belief.

A lot of capitalist development was created by the bourgeois class using state coercion and unfree labor (in the US), it didn't just spontaneously arise through free exchange of goods.

The idea that capitalism is some sort of natural phenomena is pure ideology. Marxism as a mode of analysis is less ideological in some ways than this capitalist mode of taking a lot of these "truths" as being given. That's not to say that the political manifestation of Marxist thought isn't ideological as well

File: Capture.png (776KB, 1894x432px) Image search: [Google]

776KB, 1894x432px

>>9243150
probably alot of books by milton freedman.
he spent his whole career showing how freedom beats slavery

>>9244543
I think it's just about being honest that you (or any philosopher/politician/theologian/scientist) hasn't figured everything out.

In college, my favorite professor who taught poetry and philosophy was a strict formalist but had dedicated an absurd amount of time to learning post-modern theory, just so he could debunk it. And he wasn't obnoxious about it (most of the time). He was able to see those writers as they saw themselves, and could explain their ideas in a way which the writers won't find objectionable. He was better at explaining Derrida or Baudrillard than the teachers who taught that stuff. I didn't take this guy's courses because I agreed with his theories on formalism (fuck no), but because he could teach me the stuff I was interested in (mostly pomo).

I think he had the right idea. Read your enemies and learn them as best you can, and do so in a fair, open minded manner. Ignoring your critics is a terrible idea. Echo chambers are bad.

Sometimes this means you're going to read something that's totally retarded, but that's how it goes.

>>9243150
this right here is ideology SO FUCKING PURE its actually making me mad

Why should I care about anyone but myself? "Because it's the right thing to do" is not a valid answer because morality doesn't exist.

The only time I should care for others is either when a)I want to for my own selfish reasons, like showing love for family members and loved ones simply because I love them or b) because caring for others will work to my benefit later, such as having a mutual understanding that if we work on something together we can split the profits

a) cannot really be applied to anyone aside from family and friends. I don't give a shit about random strangers and neither does anyone else. That's why I think communism is blatantly illogical, as it basically assumes you must care about random people you don't know.

>>9244101
you can entertain an idea without assenting to it, there I just escaped ideology.
>inb4 you define pragmatism as ideology

>>9244706
>The only time I should care
if morality doesnt exist that means there arent things you "should"

also for the love of god please go back to r/atheism

>>9244706
>morality doesn't exist
stopped reading

File: slavojzizek.jpg (452KB, 2500x1667px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 2500x1667px

>>9244625
>work all day
>receive a small fraction of the value of what you create (just enough to keep you fed and housed so you can continue to work)
>not slavery

>>9244722
I think it should be totally evident that Pragmatism is an ideology, but that's not how I'd respond to this.

I mean, the idea that "reading is good" or "learning is good" is ideological. In times past, being able to read and write was seen with suspicion. Socrates was illiterate and argued that writing had harmful impacts on memory. That reading a book was letting someone else do the thinking for you.

So yeah, my notion that I should "read the enemy" and "learn about views I don't agree with" is totally ideological. It puts value onto knowledge, in general, when that is not at all a certain thing.

>>9244706
>That's why I think communism is blatantly illogical
Except if everyone in the world adopted your philosophy and pursued their rational self-interest at all costs we would be communist within a day because it's to the advantage of the overwhelming majority of people.

>>9244748

Well, we wouldn't be communist so much as tribalist, with many small tribes and communities having their own communism.

We certainly would not have any kind of "world communism". It would rather be a very tribalist, nationalist world, because communism works better with homogenous tribes.

>>9244756
not me ill be a millionaire within a year xd

>>9244676
>was a strict formalist but had dedicated an absurd amount of time to learning post-modern theory, just so he could debunk it.
this is what i refer. you are only open to the other "ideology" because you want to debunk it. you never realize that the world have different views with the ideology thing because is more a ideological war if you are in one and you are aware that other people are in another.

>>9244756
> It would rather be a very tribalist, nationalist world
Key word "rational" self interest.

Nationalism is not rational.

>>9244769
So, "understanding the enemy" is only part of it for me. Personally, I've undergone a few substantial changes in how I view the world. I raised a christian and later lost that faith. I went hard fedora atheist for awhile and then discovered a wider world of philosophical thought that redeemed things I had turned away from.

I don't want to bore you with a history of my ideological revelations and conversions, but I think most people have had a revelatory experience of one kind or another. You believed one thing, experienced something and as a consequence your beliefs were changed.

Isn't this the whole "redpill" narative? The idea that you can be exposed to some new thought that will reveal a new world? I think the mistake is assuming that you discarded delusion for truth. There is always a chance you discarded a delusion for another delusion.

I do live in a very "open" state. I appreciate a number of different ideologies, some contradictory. And of course all of this is permitted by a comfortable life within 21st century capitalist consumerism.

>>9244805
>There is always a chance you discarded a delusion for another delusion.
how can you name in form of ideology this if ideology is a collection of beliefs?
what i want to say is simply that ideology is too much conceptual to attain the relation of us with the world. to put it in the simpler way. and that is the reason, i think, the people dont want to be reduced to that. all his beliefs systems in a Word.

>>9244771

I never said rational. But most people, acting in their self-interest (that is, doing what they want), would form nationalist entities.

>>9244771

Is it not? In times of war or conflict, nations have to be as homogeneous and organized as possible. Maybe in times of peace, it would be different. But in a fight for resources there is hardly any room for multicultural tolerance.

>>9244851
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your asking?

Are you saying: "How can you hold the belief that your beliefs might be wrong?"

Its difficult position. You view everything you think and feel with skepticism.

For instance, right now I've been reading Nick Land's "Fanged Noumena" and in the back of my head I have this nagging feeling that, despite the fact I enjoy Land's book, I might just be an edge lord faggot that should stop looking for such bizarre answers and settle for simpler ones.

You doubt your own interests, you doubt your own feelings. It doesn't feel good, but I think it's honest at least.

You spend a lot of time "trying on hats". You spend a lot of time trying to understand what others believe, instead of figuring out what you should believe. You live in other people's heads.

>>9244745
I think most of our difference in argument is superficial. While I don't necessarily believe your assessment is wrong, I do think your definition of ideology is a little too broad.

When some of your beliefs that you hold to be fallible coincide with the society you live within, that does not make you an ideologue. What I mean to say is that you still have active (concious) control over the system of belief, rather than the inverse.

To you this seems to mean that this is my ideology but if I were to explain what that system is nested in and so on, we would eventually arrive at biological imperatives. Of course I don't have the that level of understanding, not every human decision is quantifiable at that level either. In you broad definition you would categorize essential and inescapable actions one takes to perpetuate their existence as ideologically possessed? It's not something I agree with or even think is relevant at that level of micro interpretation.

>>9244895
precisely for all you are saying, the ideology is only for the "truths" not for the doubt of truths.

>>9244901
Yeah, how exactly would you define ideology?

Because I would define ideology as a somewhat biological function, the brain trying to make sense of the world around it. I don't think I'd describe a baby as free of ideology, even as they grapple with basic discoveries like differentiating figure from ground, understanding that objects persist when they leave your view, recongizing one's own reflection in a mirror, etc.

I think the only subject without ideology is a comatose person. But maybe they aren't a subject anymore. And there are probably arguments to be made that ideology persists outside of the mind, in the form of physical systems. But in that case we aren't talking about 'having' ideology as much as 'living within it.'

Your use of the term "ideologue" indicates to me the way you're seeing this differently. That ideology is something bad, some clouding of vision, a misreading of reality.

>>9244913
Oh yeah, what I'm describing is absolutely an ideology, one you could call Skepticism probably.

The nice thing is that it keeps you open though. It keeps you honest about what you can and can't be certain of. What you think it Truth, and what you know is merely subjective opinion.


Anyway, this convo went off the rails and we really aren't talking about OPs post anymore, but that was probably just bait anyway.

>>9244925
Classically Ideology is defined by the view of the majority or those ideas that wish to breach and replace the normative view of the society, group, or individual.

At this point we are arguing semantics and I'm willing to accept that my original comment was just a misinterpretation of your interpretation.

Being anonymous this isn't that difficult to understand considering I can't attach a system to a particular poster, so there will always be a misreading of the individual (reality), clouded by the rest of the of the posts on this board/thread.

>>9244925
then your visión of "ideology" like something bad is an ideology too. dont you think?. how Deep does the rabbit hole go?

>>9244959
You mean will I spend time asking a question like "Were the aztecs wrong to sacrifice humans?" or "Did the Unabomber have a point?"

Because yeah, I spend a lot of time considering very negative, destructive things, instead of just outright dismissing them.

Aztecs are a constant in my head. I know a lot of people like to see the Holocaust as the most extreme event in human history, but personally I find the Aztec empire, and it's hundreds of years of ritual murder and ritual warfare to be extremely perplexing and disturbing.

>>9244938
in your visión of ideology you can have various ideologies at the same time?. because in this point, what exactly differences you see between idea or ideology like a concept?.

>>9244974
no, i only mean that if everything you think is an ideology your own visión of what is an ideology is an ideology. (something not true, something clouding of visión)

Capitalism is the crazy ideology that people should be left alone and be allowed to participate in mutually consensual exchanges of goods and labor.

>>9244771
>Nationalism is not rational
This is where communists lose me. You take the idea of communism as the natural state of human organization for gratend. Tribalism is perfectly natural, as being part of a group is more beneficial than being alone. However, sharing your resources with neighboring groups of people can be irrational for an egoist unless he sees some direct net benefit from such an exchange, such as fair trade or a military alliance. Having a giant tribal alliance in the form of a nation is one of the best ways of guaranteeing that your tribe is big and strong enough to defend itself against most attackers, yet not so big that it is overextended and fractioned with constant risk of secession after any sort of internal or external crysis.

You assume that in a world where everyone only thinks about their self interst would be a international communist one because that would benefit most people in every single group. That's irrational. What would benefit you the most would be living in a tribe big enough to defend itself and maybe even to bully others into submission, having to share resources with the least ammount of people outside of your tribe and keeping most of it to yourself. Rome was essentially a nation that practiced imperialism, because it benefited them. Their biggest mistake was overextension.

There's nothing wiser than nationalism for the common man, unless said man is from an extremely poor nation, in that case he will want to be absorved by some other stronger nation as long as they promise to treat him like they would their own citizens.

>>9243736
Iván Szelényi gives a pretty good rundown on Marx in his Yale lectures

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIlEkbU4rx0&list=PLDF7B08FF8564D1FE&index=9

>>9245139
Blood and soil nationalism is kind of retarded, nationalism is the idea that that the nation you were born in is the best because you were born there. Where communist lose me is extending that to culture, and the whole hating of private property.

Some cultures are better than others, period. It's not subjective like a work of art.

>>9245293
>Blood and soil nationalism is kind of retarded
Both blood and soil defined humanity. Your clan is your family, your king is your elder patriarch, your home is your land. Waving these off as "kind of retarded" is denying the origins of human civilization and the fact that we have barely gotten away from any of these concepts in the last 100k years of our history.

>>9243237
The Communist Manifesto is produced in factories, binded by workers who work the machines, who are then paid by the publisher to continue working. There is irony in it all.

>>9245139
Wanting your nation to prosper ≠ Nationalism
Nationalism implies a lot of other concepts in it's practical meaning, such as state property for the defense of the nation, or the idea that everyone must work together to protect the land. Just wanting your big family to be the best is common to every group. I don't see anything rational (from the individual point of view) about giving up life for the good of the nation.
Also consider that according to marxist theory capitalism is a necessary state in the progress to communism. The tribalist economic system is barely proto-communism, reduced to small comunities, and just because there's not enough people to support state or private property. Authentic communism is not the natural state of the world, at least according to the original writings of Marx.
Besides, and this is my personal input, I think the thing is that communism is the most rational way from the point of view of the community, not the individual. For each person, the wisest thing to do is protect his own cow. But for the colective, it's best to have common property. It's still rational, I think, but aiming to improve the grouo rather than the individual.

>>9245293
>>9245293
>Some cultures are better than others, period. It's not subjective like a work of art.

Believing one culture to be superior to another is absolutely subjective. If you ask a Maoist what culture is best and you ask a Nazi what culture is best you get different answers. There is no objective viewpoint on which culture is best.

If culture superiority was objective, then there would be no dispute on the topic. The fact the argument exists, and has existed for thousands of years, is evidence of the subjective nature of valuing cultures.

>>9245307
>last 100k years of our history.

pedantic, but we only have roughly 6-8 thousand years of history. Anything before that point is prehistory. I don't mean this to refute any point your making, I just can't stand people saying history when they mean prehistory or history+prehistory.

>>9245319
> I don't see anything rational (from the individual point of view) about giving up life for the good of the nation.
You don't see what's rational about giving up some individuality to have a functioning army? Because that's basically is what a nation is. The roman republic was one of the better examples of this, as soldiers were basically volunteers that served in an organized army that was subsidized by the state. Yet the wealthier families bought better equipments to arm themselves and their children, to make sure they do the best duty to protect the state and were also qualified for public office.

There's always self-interest in what's supposedly self-sacrifice, as greater cooperation grants your nation power over your neighbors but there are also direct encouragements for the individual to accept such self-sacrifice.

>The tribalist economic system is barely proto-communism
The "tribalistic" economic system can be anything. It can even be "proto-capitalist", as it can be rather proto-feudal as individuals could own more property (land, slaves, etc) than others and even have special status or hierarchical titles, and direct family inheritance was common.

>>9245336
>pedantic, but we only have roughly 6-8 thousand years of history. Anything before that point is prehistory.
Theres plenty of evidence of our pre-history in archeology. Are you dismissing it? Humans were very much tied to blood relations and waged wars since as far back in our species existence as our bones can be found and studied.

>>9245358
what, no? I don't give a shit about any of that. I'm just correcting you when you say 100k years of history, that isn't true. History is defined as humanity recording itself. At best we have 8 thousand years of history.

nationalism yada yada, I'm not even paying attention to that part of the convo

>>9245336
>Believing one culture to be superior to another is absolutely subjective. If you ask a Maoist what culture is best and you ask a Nazi what culture is best you get different answers. There is no objective viewpoint on which culture is best.
>If culture superiority was objective, then there would be no dispute on the topic. The fact the argument exists, and has existed for thousands of years, is evidence of the subjective nature of valuing cultures.

Sure the culture of the unwashed illiterate barbarians living in mud huts is just as good as the culture of the Greeks and Roman Empire. Nonsense!

There are cultures long dead with more merits than the aboriginal peoples of Australia. The culture that produces the most amount of civility with the least amount of crime is better, objectively, these are measurable statistics. Culture also has huge impact on language, and language is empirically linked to behavior. People that live in cultures where the language's present and future tenses are the same are more likely to save money and be proactive in their children's education.

There is a reason why Jewish people do better in school, there is a reason why Japanese are better at saving money than most westerners, there is a reason America is overweight, there is a reason why African American are 50% of the prison population. CULTURE.

You do bring up an interesting point, everyone believes their culture is better than every other culture, that is simply pure human tribalism, and tribalism is bad.

>>9245379
>History is defined as humanity recording itself
Now who's being pedantic, anon? Yes, that's the literal definition of history, I guess I could have used the term "existence" instead.

>>9245336
>If x was objective, then there would be no dispute on the topic

Do you really believe that?

>>9245389
yeah, that's what I meant when I said pedantic. I was saying my point about the definition of history is pedantic, but I really can't stand people misusing the term.

>>9245405
People should really learn the term prehistory.

>>9245396
Yes. This is the common sense definition of "objective." No one disputes that carrots are orange. No one disputes that drinking arsenic will kill you. No one disputes that Orson Welles was the voice of Unicron in Transformers the Movie. These are objective.

Whether one culture is better than another is a matter of point of view.

>>9245386
like this guy is arguing. He sets up criteria that cultures can be better or worse based on crime rates, verb conjugation of languages or the building materials of houses.

This displays a bias. He decides the criteria by which one culture is better and measures cultures against his criteria.

Well what about human sacririce? I say the that the culture with the biggest pyramid and highest annual rates of human sacrifice on the giant pyramid is now the best culture. The Aztecs win, with the Maya and Olmecs as runners up. The USA doesn't have any giant pyramids or state sponsored human sacrifice, so it's at the bottom of the list.

I say that the best culture is the one who builds the biggest sports stadium. That means that North Korea is the best culture, as the Rungrado is the largest sports stadium in the world!

See, how we decide which culture is "better" is determined by what the individual judge deems is "best".

I don't actually want to convince any of you that one culture is better than another one. What I do want to convince you of is the definitions of Objective and Subjective.

If you can't understand that ideas of cultural supremacy are subjective, you lack a basic understanding of the definition of the word subjective.

There's nothing wrong with it being subjective! It's not a scary thing! It's important that we are able to make subjective valuations about the world.

But again, the very fact that other people will disagree on "which culture is best" is enough to tell you that it is a subjective valuation.

>>9243150

If you are someone of a left wing persuasion, then you could never really agree with capitalism, because it's goal is totally different. Unlike socialism or communism, the goal of capitalism is not to make humanity more equal or fair, it's to encourage achievement and innovation, a kind of technological transcendence. So there is no way you will really go "huh, I guess they have a point" because their goal is completely different from yours.

Well-adjusted, learnèd men don't "believe" in capitalism because they can't. Capitalism isn't a "theory" (in the truest sense of the word) like Communism; it is more akin to not believing in evolution. It is a form of faith in the markets, and like any good hoax, some benefit from it but the majority of the people who believe in it are overweight, uneducated, greedy, and poor for a reason.

Just start with Marx or go back to your safespace at /pol/

>>9245435
If we can't agree on what is objectively good and objectively bad for humanity as a whole then we can have no discussion and we fall into the trappings deconstruction. Low crime rates are good, high education scores are good, murder is bad. If you can't agree with me there then there is no discussion to be had. I will even agree with you that morality can be subjective, the belief in god maybe good or bad, but some thing are objectively good for all mankind and somethings are objectively bad for all mankind.

>>9245448
I think the 20th century put a bit of a dent to the theory that capitalism was a hoax and marxist doctrine would inevitably provide a much better recipy for a superior society.

But you can always deny history, worship marx and read nothing but socialist theory and always go backto your safespace at /leftypol/ or some other goony board if you feel too stressed out by people arguing against it. By the way, dedicated lefty boards are all actual safespaces and most will permaban anyone who disagrees with baic left-wing prerogatives of thought so you'll be extra safe in a perfectly insulated echochamber!

right-wing: using practical applications to achieve some kind of greater purpose or innovation
left-wing: using theoretical applications to achieve human equality/fairness

If Marxism is so great how come it's never worked?

>>9245489
It has never been tried. Well, if some society eventually make it work maybe marxists will finally admit that it has been tried.

Literally every economics book and politics book about Europe and USA

>>9245495
But the Marxist will just explain the failure away by saying it wasn't real Marxism. See the issue with Marxism is that it's an end goal without a blue print. It's never "done right" or "tried" until the outcome is achieved. Marxism is a collection of outcomes not a collections of processes.

>>9245458
forget about what you or I think is good or bad for all of mankind. Throughout history, people have waged wars over the fact they can't agree on what is the best way to live. Every culture values different things. I'm not aware of any culture that doesn't see their culture as the best culture (unless they hold that all cultures are equal or their culture and a few others are best).

the very fact of this historical disagreement should make clear that "what is the best culture" can only have subjective answers. If it was a matter of objective fact, people would not debate it.

Hell, within a culture, people can't even agree on what is the best way to live. Take any modern democracy, with it's parties and political disagreements.

Cultural Supremacy is always a matter of subjective valuation. A person must determine the criteria by which they will determine supremacy and then they measure.

We know carrots are orange, because globally we have agreed on how to measure and describe colors. We cannot determine which culture is best because we cannot even agree on the criteria by which the measurement will be made.

The best part of this argument is that by disagreeing with me, you are proving my point! You say cultural supremacy is objectively measurable, I say it isn't. If it was a matter objective measurement, there would be no argument to be had about this.

Can you imagine us debating whether carrots are orange?

>>9245489
Because Lenin fucked it up with his take on it

>>9245507
Every contemporary communist I've read sucks Lenins dick.

>>9245505
The issue with marxism is that marxists have the gall to attribute scientific merit to what essentially is Plato's Republic if it was a much more lenghty body of work written by some emo, revolution-worshipping nerd autist who hated his own society.

File: milton-friedman.jpg (42KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x360px

>>9243150
anything by this man, Hans hermann hoppe ,Murray Rothbard

File: images-1.jpg (3KB, 200x126px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 200x126px

>>9245511
You sound well read

>>9245448

I could easily say the same about the concept of human equality. "Equality" is a hoax and something that people believe almost entirely on faith.

>>9245551
You look like you are very tech savvy.

>>9245507
That's funny. Mao said the exact same thing about Lenin. I'm glad he followed Marx's theory more strictly. It showed.

>>9243150
the wealth of nations you idiot

>>9243294
lmao what a shit list

Here you go OP:

>Milton Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom
>FA Hayek: The Road to Serfdom
>Thomas Sowell: Basic Economics
> Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

>>9244740
>work all day
>receive state-allotted ration (just enough to keep you fed and housed so you can continue to work)
>not slavery

>>9245312
t. Alanis Morissette

>>9245572
He didn't actually, Mao thought Lenin was on the money. It was Khrushchev he didn't like.

>>9243150
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>>9245495
So are we just going to try again? The last attempt throughout the 20th century was devastating and it failed. That tells me there's going to be even more devastation next time around and it might not even succeed. And what if it's just an inherently unworkable system? People are just going to keep revolting forever which would be even worse than the suffering that Marxists attribute to capitalism.
Doesn't the 20th century kind of throw a spanner into Marx's view of history?

>>9243294
>Diogenes

In a way you can call capitalism an "ideology" or "system". You can call it an ideology in the sense that capitalism is a refutation of planned society and governmental systems, it's a negative philosophy that criticises economic policy and legislation. And you can call it a system because it's a way that resources are distributed, a way that property is used, a way that production is owned and a way that people resolve problems. But people who "support capitalism", unless they are proposing policies to protect or enforce it, don't rely on positive claims other than "wealth creation is good". The only positive thing about capitalist philosophy is its practice - people produces goods, create labour and build relationships.

>>9245191
Thanks anon. Anyone want to criticise this guy's lecture? Comments are disabled

>>9245353
It's not a little individuality, it's your whole life. If the goal of a person is to live happy, then acting in a way that leads to his death is irrational. Yes, it would be completely rational to fight for your nation because you don't want to be a slave under another king's rule, but when it gets to the point of giving up your own life (like in an army, as you said), the rational thing to do would be to stop helping the nation.
It's true that for Rome the army and the sacrifice of "some individualities" was fundamental for it's success. And that's exactly my point. It worked because it was rational, but not from the point of view of the individual, but that of the colective. It made sense for accomplishing the nation's goals, but for the people it was irrational, and if "free" people went along with it and willingly gave their lifes to a cause, it was because of the sentiment of nationalism. And anyway, in the case of Rome, I don't think people were free enough to be able to refuse going to the army without punishment from the state, the society or the market.
But I agree with you on the matter of the tribalistic economic system, I wouldn't call it proto communism. I was just pointing out that communism is not the natural state of humanity in the original marxist theory.

File: 7nte5.jpg (29KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 620x413px

>>9243255
>Capitalism
>people are allowed to control their own labor
It's almost as if you haven't read Marx

>>9245444
Capitalism doesn't really fuel innovation though. Most innovation comes from the military because it takes more then just supply and demand.

>>9243294
So much shit.

>>9245597
This is better.

>>9243311
You are right but
>praxeology
>unempirical garbage
why?

File: econOneLesson.jpg (37KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 333x499px

>>9243150
Probably the most potent work of Capitalist apologetics I've come across.

>>9243150
McDonalds Menu

>>9247003

Military innovation practically is capitalism, though. Their goal is to be better than the competition. Their goal isn't to make humans more equal or fair.

So in the military it is still competition that is driving the innovation. Even though it uses public funds, the purpose of it is almost hyper-capitalism.

>>9245312
It's not ironic at all.

>>9243150
>some books written about Capitalism

Try every book about economics ever. They all start from the concept of free market capitalism and then constrain it to the boundaries of whatever paradigma they are in.

Capitalism doesn't support the arts as good as socialism does or comunism will eventually will.

>>9243150
Marx's Das Kapital is writen about Capitalism.

>>9247061

Are you fucking dumb? Capitalism thrives on volunteer transactiosn. Military innovation is just a matter of spending on R&D without ever looking to make a profit. The army doesn't ever make a a freaking profit!!

>>9248174
*has

>>9247061
military is pretty much socialist. The military complex is capitalist.

>>9246372
>Doesn't the 20th century kind of throw a spanner into Marx's view of history?

Yes, which is the Frankfurt school and most marxists after that started abandoning or at least modifying Marx' view of history. Your question is essentially what the intellectual left has been dealing with for the past 50 years, most postwar marxist philosophers are quite bleak with little optimism towards some kind of revolution.

>>9243263
>Adam Smith thought capitalism would be heavily regulated or replaced by something else
Source? I know he was nothing like modern Ayn Rand style capitalists but I haven't these ideas before.

>>9248181
1) Most military spending ends up in the private sector, there is an entire private industry that does nothing except manufacture military goods. Also a lot of military R&D finances things which are too expensive/risky for the private sector, where do you think the internet came from?
2) The army keeps the capitalist state going so they can turn a profit.
3) Sometimes waging a "senseless" war can be actually benificial towards solving capitalisms inherent contradictions.

>>9248218
>Most military spending ends up in the private sector

It does not, you are thinking about the manufacturing part where they get their kit and the likes.
All the R&D from private companies comes from private investors. This one can imply is a form of capitalism when the military buy from lets say Boeing or Colt. Army R&D stays in the Army.


2) The army is an enourmous cost for the state not a profit machine if there was a guarantee of never having war there would be no armies. The old age of conquest and loot has passed with Napoleon.

3) The only contradiction that capitalism has is a linear growth model one by which destruction is fatalistic.

I suggest you read this paper it slightly touches the economics of war in Iraq.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12054.pdf

>>9243255
>>9244071
>Capitalism isn't an ideology
>it's the emergent phenomenon that occurs when people are allowed to...

Classical liberalism IS an ideology though. The above can be translated as

>Capitalism isn't an ideology
>it's the emergent phenomenon that results from my ideology

>>9248168

And why do we have a duty to support the arts? If people like art so much, they can spend their own money on it.

>>9248168

Except art was censored under communism.

>>9248251
>Army R&D stays in the Army.

1) Half of the tech we use every day is based upon some kind of military R&D.

2) I never said that the army was a profit machine. In a world without armies the capitalist state could never survive in it's current form. Not even necessarily implying some kind of glorious communist revolution here, any kind of destructive revolt, which there are constantly.

3) Capitalism's biggest contradiction is that it's self-reproduction is so efficient that it sabotages itself. Destruction can be useful here. Just because the Iraq war wasn't good for the US doesn't mean it was bad for capitalism.

>>9248290
Money is what destroyed art though

>>9248290
You are on a god damn literature board right now. Almost ever thinker that has thought himself into a theoretical deadlock eventually turns to art because it has a unique transcendent quality that nothing else human does (except maybe love) achieves.

File: 1413910032476.png (13KB, 640x712px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x712px

If capitalism is bad why do most economists (who are the experts) support it?

>>9248359
Because if it's a question of maintaining the status quo vs. a radical reorientation, "most economists" (how many, exactly? And in what proportion?) will support the former because it's necessarily going to cause less damage to the economy in "most" short term scenarios

>>9248315
>Half of the tech we use every day is based upon some kind of military R&D.

So that means public money found its way back to the public from your previous point.

Most R&D of the army does indeed stay in the army unless a private company can find a public use for it. The Army only sells patents occasionaly but never sells directly to the public unless its outdated machinery.

2) I am curious to know why there would be no capitalist state if there were no armies.

Capitalism thrives on volunteer transactions made between individuals. I think you are referring to the way of taking commodities which is not Capitalism but rather theft.

3) I wouldn't dare to say that over efficiency is a contradiction are you referring to the need of constant consumption of hyper inflation.

As far as destruction goes it is a capitalist worst nightmare.

>>9248290
Why do we have a "duty" to subject ourselves to the capitalist understanding of "moral exchange?" Why is it "morally wrong" for artists to support themselves through theft (e.g. individual reclamation)?

>>9248396

Not that guy but theft is Always wrong no matter how you look at it.

Moral exchange is necessary because it is a voluntary transaction between individuals to achieve a good or service. If you simply for somebody to work for you you only get better. If you take what you want then only you get better and in both cases making one person worse off when in capitalism both people are better off.

Art is a subjective taste and if people want to support it then that's fine but one can't force anybody to pay for art they may or may not like.

>>9248393
>Capitalism thrives on volunteer transactions made between individuals

Read up on the history of capitalism. There is nothing "volunteer" about it. It had to be brutally, violently forced onto people to get to where it is right now. And the system, any system we've had so far, can only be stable by the active use of force.

>>9243150
Private property and enforceable business contracts should exist

There I've written the capitalist manifesto

File: 1487704175787.jpg (36KB, 420x336px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 420x336px

ITT:
Communists being annoying, as usual

Most of you will come to realize that you have nothing to gain from engaging them. Posting this has made me euphoric.

>>9248426

What you are thinking about is mercantilism.

as the first fundamental law of capitalism is, 'Absent coercion, no one will enter into an agreement or an exchange unless they think they'll be better off for so doing.'

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html

>>9248454
Mercantilism is just an early form of capitalism.

>>9248474

That's like saying the telegram was just an form of a Phone which it was but fundamentely different an worse than the Phone we use today.

File: spooks2.png (273KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 450x450px

>>9248417
>theft is always wrong
Suddenly got ghostly as fuck in here.

>only one person is better off after theft
This implies I have a moral duty to others, and we were arguing over "moral duty" to begin with. You're just hoping I agree with a more well codified deontological ethic ("don't hurt others") than "don't steal."

I look forward to reading your axiomatic proof of theft's general immorality.

>>9248454
>'Absent coercion, no one will enter into an agreement or an exchange unless they think they'll be better off for so doing.'

Absent coercion i will be better off having slaves and they will be better off being my property than starving

>>9248503

Making somebody worse off is Always bad hence pareto principle.

I don't need you to agree with me amigo this a simple exchange of ideas. In a society everybody has moral duties otherwise we resort to a state of anarchy.

>>9248506

>mercantilism.

>>9248588
>Absent coercion i will be better off having slave workers in dubai and they will be better off working for me for basically nothing than starving

File: stirner'smonopoly.png (176KB, 500x524px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 500x524px

>>9248585
>I refer you to a restatement of my dogma so that you will agree with me
>you don't need to agree with me, but I'm right

OK shortstuff, keep up the Good Fight. But I will say this: we're always in a "state of anarchy." The "State" in the sense of government is a notion in the mind, a spook. It does not exist, people who believe in it (cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, constituents, etc.). I have dislodged it from its place of power over me, and you can do the same by willing.

>>9248585
You cannot prove that theft is always making someone worse off though. What if I steal someones weapon that he would have used to murder a bunch of people. What if I steal cheap medicine to save someone's live. What if I steal food to keep myself from starving.

>>9248637

I'm dutch mate try again with the shortstuff. We are not in a state of anarchy since you won't do anything illegal in this current state except 420 blaze it and shitposting.

The state of anarchy simply does not exist as a natural order Always will follow suit. The fact that you are still a free man is proof of the fact that we live in a society where subjegation of somebody else is illegal unless it is a voluntary transaction.

On a side note I think its really funny that you actually think we live in a state of anarchy because "I don't accept ur laws exdee" hahaha

>>9248640

Every rule has an exception and the rule is in place to protect the broad swath of cases that it is not the exception.

Hence murder is illegal unless in self defence or to prevent much worse.

and in the abstract rule of law a potential killer could charge you with theft you take his weapon away but you claim that it is to prevent worse yet he could not commit a crime since he didn't have a gun making you the culprit, thoughts are free just for the simple fact they are undetectable.

>>9243413

Incompetence of school board in that book was just amazing, especially the chairman.

>>9246958
theoretical nonsense < reality

File: 16486875_949816875149139_5589966442098504463_o.jpg (159KB, 1249x1440px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1249x1440px

>>9248679
>he thinks anarchy is a state of chaos
You're hiding the coercion of wage slavery under the guise of a "voluntary transaction", the prole has no choice but to sell his labour for money so he can live, the other option is to starve with only the moral superiority of being a free man in a world of slaves.
Institutionalized subjugation exists all throughout society, the boss/worker relationship, the police, military and the state all serve the primary purpose of subjugating the working class to the material conditions of the world today. A world were capital/wealth is pooled in absurd amounts by so few and those without are forced to work and create more wealth to extract a mere fraction of it those who have it.
The average joe has no choice but to accept this "voluntary transaction" of subjugation.

File: ideology3.gif (892KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 500x342px

>>9248679
What the fuck does being Dutch have to do with anything, idiot? Complete non-sequitur.

>we are not in a state of anarchy since you won't do anything illegal
How do you know I'm not a murderer? Call me edgy all you want, that's not an argument, and there's no way for you to know I'm not a murderer other than my word.

>the state of anarchy does not exist as a natural order will always follow suit
That's a flat contradiction. If it never exists, what does "natural order" follow from?

>The fact that you are still a free man is proof of the fact that we live in a society where subjegation of somebody else is illegal unless it is a voluntary transaction.
A "free man"? Free from what? Total freedom (possession of or by nothing) is the same thing as death.

>On a side note I think its really funny that you actually think we live in a state of anarchy because "I don't accept ur laws exdee" hahaha

I'm glad to have amused you. I'm sorry you can't derive anything other than derisive amusement at a fact. Also, according to you, there is no state of anarchy (but "natural order follows from it), so no matter how often I point out that you contradict yourself you'll still believe the same bullshit. "The state has no power over me except that which I give it" is a statement of fact. I'll wait for you to grow up to realize this
>inb4 cops
What happens when I trick them into thinking I'm a "law-abiding citizen"? They leave me alone, do to whatever thing ("legal" or "illegal") I please.

>>9248781


"definition of anarchy : absence of order"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

No friend, the labourers moved from the country side to actually make more money than they would living on the country side in archaic societies. The same reason the Inland chinese are moving in droves to the cities to work in factories, so they can send remittances to their family back home. They do so voluntary they make more money. It's for this reason the Chinese government has put in state travel bans in place to keep the poor farmers from workin in factories abandoning their livestock.

The wealth is pooled by a few and still every Household has a mulitple cars,tv, so much food people are dying from it.

There is also tremendous class mobility in most advanced states. One can go from lower middle class to top in one generation.

>>9248806
Anarchy is not anarchism. Is that really what this whole argument was about, your misunderstanding of a simple concept?

>>9248805

Then don't start your sentence by a personal attack silly haha

1) If you commit a crime you will be punished for it. Just because you can get away with a crime doesn't mean you live in a state of Anarchy unless you live in Somalia and even then.

2) Natural order is the perpetual state of human kind, Anarchy never exists something or somebody Always fills the vacuum within moments.

3) The state has power over you by the power of gun, if you disobey the law you are going to get punished. Perhaps you don't think to abide by man made law but in the end you are not in jail unless you have WIfi there.

4) As I stated before just because you don't get punished doesn't mean that you aren't in an organised society.

As for me this discussion has become pointless and an excersise in futility since we both have opposing views thinking you we live in a state of anarchy.

>>9248814

Anarchism is the political philosophy that has as ultimate goal Anarchism.

File: spooks3.jpg (123KB, 948x703px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 948x703px

>>9248827
>If you commit a crime you will be punished for it
Unless I'm not.
>Natural order is the perpetual state of human kind, Anarchy never exists something or somebody Always fills the vacuum within moments.
Pretty easy to say "There can never be anarchy" when your premise is that it's impossible. Also, do you mean "anarchism" when you say "anarchy"? Because they are not the same thing. Further, to say "anarchy" in the sense of "chaos" is impossible is just silly; I mean, by your own admission, if someone "fills the vacuum in moments" then there must be a vacuum to fill (anarchy). Anarchy is a natural consequence of statism.
>Just because you can get away with a crime doesn't mean you live in a state of Anarchy unless you live in Somalia and even then.
>and even then
Literally not an argument. Get your shit together.
>The state has power over you by the power of gun, if you disobey the law you are going to get punished.
Unless I'm not.
>As I stated before just because you don't get punished doesn't mean that you aren't in an organised society.
So, the state has power over me because it "will" punish me, except when it doesn't, and even when it doesn't, I still live in the state because the state is the same thing as "ordered society"?

You're so spooked out, I don't think you can even have your own views anymore

>>9248857

I don't know what a spook is care to explain before you get all personal again.

1)Anarchy doesn't exist in the sense that when a state or an organisation fails there will be immeadiately somebody to pick up the slacks. You can't have a free for all state ever since the natural tendency of people is to get organised in one form or another.

2) Like I said just because you can get away with a crime doesn't mean we don't live in an organised society, just focusing on the last part to dismiss the rest is really not playing in your favor since I want to have a reasonable discussion with you.

3) If you don't pay your taxes you will be forced by point of gun to either pay or go to jail. Unless you are not which still doesn't mean that we don't live in an organised society.

4) The state has power over you because you are born into a system by no choice of your own, we all have to live by laws that we never signed or never accepted and that is called a society in which there are rules.

Just out of sheer curiousity what would you consider yourself as in a political spectrum?

>>9248857

Also no need to be rude again I come here genuinely for the discussion from different viewpoints there is a reason that I come to this specific board.

>>9248903
>Anarchy doesn't exist in the sense that when a state or an organisation fails there will be immeadiately somebody to pick up the slacks
Even if "picking up the slack" is instantaneous, there must in that instant be "anarchy" for your theory to work. And this contradicts your claim that there "cannot be anarchy," thus it is a useless theory.
>Like I said just because you can get away with a crime doesn't mean we don't live in an organised society, just focusing on the last part to dismiss the rest is really not playing in your favor since I want to have a reasonable discussion with you.
Here you're just repeating yourself, you didn't answer my question.
> If you don't pay your taxes you will be forced by point of gun to either pay or go to jail. Unless you are not which still doesn't mean that we don't live in an organised society.
Again, repeating the contradiction.
>The state has power over you because you are born into a system by no choice of your own, we all have to live by laws that we never signed or never accepted and that is called a society in which there are rules.
Here you answer the question. You've just transmuted the "state" into "society" a la Rosa Luxemburg. The same "law" that ostensibly prevents me from e.g. murdering (even though it doesn't) instead of being controlled by the "state" is now controlled, in your mind, by "society." This does nothing to attack my point; I can do things with impunity, if I'm strong and clever enough. Society fails to pinion my acts in the same way the State failed previously.

If you don't reconcile the contradiction you keep repeating (order comes from anarchy, but there can be no anarchy), I will consider this "discussion" at a close. Although it has mostly consisted of you repeating yourself and me asking you to make a cogent point.

Also, complaining about being insulted on 4chan is pretty juvenile.

>>9243150
The Art of the Deal
by Don

>>9243150
Any Economics 101 textbook

File: milton-friedman-smiling.jpg (44KB, 317x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 317x480px

>>9244625
tfw you realize milton friedman was right about literally everything

>>9248168
>Capitalism doesn't support the arts
What you mean is "people don't support the arts". If people, managing their individual economies, can't afford the arts, then there is clearly a better uses of resources. If you need a government to control people's resources in order to create an industry that you personally see as valuable, then you're just misappropriating resources and labour against what people want. Don't blame the reality of scarcity on an economic "system".
Also, people do want art. Art has value and people are willing to buy it.

File: 16113933_1747019138948270_2347934390515244382_n.jpg (151KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 960x720px

>>9245651
>lol communism is just a big state and states are bad
>source: t. austrian economics
as soon as people figure out that stalinism =/= communism or even socialism we will achieve full gay luxury islamic gommunism

File: lenin.jpg (26KB, 372x527px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 372x527px

>>9248806
I meant the whole institution of work is not voluntary u fool

Also all these useless luxury products are fine and good but the people of these non -'archaic' democratic societies have almost no sway on public policy while those with all the pooled wealth have enormous influence over the whole institution of government.

>>9243294
>Diogenes
Why are ancaps so retarded

File: image.jpg (89KB, 454x600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 454x600px

>>9243255
>capitalism is natural
I bet you think it has no theory at all huh

>>9250598
It survives and exists without theory. In a free society there are no legislators who implement capitalism or politicians who enforce the free market. There are people who live in their own interests, the interests of their family, the interests of their community and whatever else they are invested in. Without theory capitalism can exist fully, because it is without economic planning that capitalism takes place. Theory and ideology are conducive to planned society.

>>9250379
>Art has value and people are willing to buy into it.
ftfy

>>9244625
Then why was he a capitalist?