/Llg/-Left Libertarian General-Second Edition

File: Leftist literature recommended.jpg (252KB, 1200x1252px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1200x1252px

>Recommended Leftist/Progressive literature

>>128120711
Hold on a second, didn't you get absolutely destroyed in the previous thread? Why are you back? Why are you posting that book list if you claim not to be a marxist and just a moderate liberal?

I assume that just like in the previous thread, you are incapable of axionically defending your beliefs, and that trying to debate you would just result in you saying "i wunno man, I'm just a moderate liberal that wants welfare". And that on its own is also disingenuous. Paying people to be unemployed is not going to solve unemployment, it will make it worse.

Your beliefs are uncooked, infantile, naive. You should stop right now. Just quit identifying yourself with a political belief. Learn to shut the fuck up and just look at things from a neutral point of view for about 3 years. Which was the advice I gave you last thread.

>>128121441
>Didn't you get destroyed in the previous thread
No, not at all. I think I defended my claims quite well.

>>128121990
You didn't. You couldn't even defend the most basic notions of marxian beliefs. And as I said, you just claim now to be a liberal who is not a marxist, not a socialist, and not an anarchist.

What did you defend again? Out of all that discussion and your inability to defend your claims, you just said you just want welfare.

Again, why did you post that book list? Did you gave up on being a liberal and then became a communist again in the course of 24 hours? I thought you said surplus value shouldn't go to the worker in the previous thread.

Seems like a waste of time for a 20yo who barely knows what he believes in to start making political threads and trying to debate people.

>>128122158
I'm not a Marxist. I wasn't advocating for Marxism in that thread; I was defending the concept of surplus value and what I think Marx got right in his critique of Capitalism.

Giving credit to someone doesn't mean you agree with their ideas.

>>128122424
You are giving credit to something you claim you think it's wrong? Are you mentally retarded? Apparently you have to give credit to Das Kapital for saying something you think its wrong.

But what I think it's more likely, you are just an edgy teenager who has no consistent beliefs.

>>128122578
No, I'm giving credit to one element of the Marxist critique. That's it.

I can also give credit to some of the things the Nazis did, like discover the link between smoking and lung cancer. Does that mean I'm a Nazi?

>>128122424
On the previous thread marx was wrong because it makes no sense for the worker to deserve returns from the investments he never made, now all of a sudden marx "got it right". Then, when I question you on that you say "i'm not a marxist" and then you say you just want welfare.

Do you mind reading my advice? :>>128121918

>>128122711
One element you couldn't defend, and you agreed was wrong. Why are you insisting on this? Do you think I'll just erase my memory and agree with you? That's not how things work.

Do workers deserve returns from all investments they didn't make or not? Was Marx idea of "surplus labor" right or not?

If I invest money, and hire people, do the people I hired deserve not only my investment by also the return from my investment? Do I deserve to lose money for investing? Was Marx theory of exploitation right or wrong?

>>128123004
No, I support Capitalism. I do not think that the labourers deserve the returns on investment.

However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that the idea of surplus value is incorrect. It's observable in prices of the product of the worker's labour versus the labourer's hourly wage.

>>128123306
> I do not think that the labourers deserve the returns on investment.
>However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that the idea of surplus value is incorrect
Seems like you are a bit too stupid to realize the contradiction here.

>It's observable in prices of the product of the worker's labour versus the labourer's hourly wage.
Except in a market you cannot have a product where its costs exceed the value of the good. It would be nonsensical. That's an idiotic way of proving a theory; by looking at the only specific scenario where the result needed is true. Why don't you try opening a business and hiring as much people as you can. Will you be able to make a profit just hiring people randomly? Nope. That's because the surplus labor theory is utter nonsense.

You said that laborers don't deserve the investments of other people. That means that the "surplus labor" is nothing more than the investments and returns of the labor of entrepreneurs. The worker is not the one doing the investment, the worker alone would not make that wealth, the worker is just offering a specific set of skills, and how productive he can be grossly depends on the investments made on the enterprise, not on the worker. So the worker is not the one creating profit for the enterprise.

You are trying to be a marxist, but at the same time you are too much of a coward; you know that it would put you at far greater scrutiny than just claiming to be a liberal cuck. In the end, you get the worst sides of both, economic illiteracy and outdated concepts matched with a cuck tier moral beliefs where what people deserve scales with how shitty they are.

>>128120711
Sage

Cognitive dissonance - the movement.