/lit/ - Literature

Try JR

>>10595867
Bump

Pretty much any economics book tackles the issues of contemporary society while trying to state it is for the system and tries to improve it theoretically.

Books like this are

The Wealth of Nations
Progress and Poverty
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money

if you look into the early days of the workers movement, there were a lot of strains which weren't communist, anarchism being the biggest one that still exists today. the question is of course what "anti capitalist" means, since there are many movements that are critical of capitalism yet don't want to entirely negate it.

>>10595999
I'm not OP, but when they said "noncommunist" I think they were hinting at anticapitalist movements that aren't leftist or radically progressive.

>>10595867
>What are some anti-capitalist, but non communist books out there?
When you think OP is asking for Mein Kampf

>Or even better, without any alternative agenda if that's possible
And then realize maybe not

Without an “agenda” is a naive ask as all lit on capitalism either supports or asks for an alternative, but here’s the best I can do

Nonfiction:
Shock doctrine
Zinn’s peoples History
Capitalism a ghost story
Homage to Catalonia

Fiction
Exit west
The jungle
Animal farm

>>10596269
I hate capitalism, but for the love of god, I can't stand those goddamn blue haired trannies and whiny brown bitches. The left's solution to capitalism bows down to placing those freaks on a pedestal and surrendering to their every whim, and I can't do that, I won't do that.

What you need, my friend, is 3 acres and a cow.

>>10596314
>If you have any problems with capitalism then you're literally Hitler
Either a proselytizing /pol/ack or a mad libertarian

>>10596407
Okay, this covers food and sex, but what about his other needs?

>>10596435

>>10596398
Its politics mate; i get ya, but I think the smart leftists (the ones concerned with labor and the environment) just see those freaks as easy support for a political coalition that needs to take place before any real change can happen.

Those freaks would be the first to go in a post-capitalist system. Can you imagine anarcosyndicalism with them? Or a technocratic socialism or retro communism a la cccp or Cuba or North Korea or Maoist China? Hell no.

>>10596398
>hate capitalism
>hate socialism
so, nazism?

>>10596470
Distributism!

>>10596470
tribalism

Why do you hate capitalism? Is there a more efficient way to allocate scarce resources than with price?

>>10596520
I didn't say I hate capitalism, I am suspicious of it and I don't like the kind of community produces. All I want is to broaden, deepen or dispel my current thoughts on the subject

>>10596520
Not OP, but it's pretty obvious that in its current format, capitalism gives rise to enormous class differences. It's insane just to think about how much more wealthy the top 1% are compared to most of us. You need money to make money, you can't make money if you have none.
I like most European approaches, where the wealthy are much more taxed than the middle class.

>>10596470
Nazism is just a different capitalism, the dickheads paid Hugo Boss to make their uniforms

>>10596539

Why is it a problem that some people have more money than others? I'm sure that we could agree that some people deserve more than others; that a doctor deserves more than a fry cook, but why doesn't this same principle apply when thinking of classes?

Some people are better at creating wealth than others. I think there's also an assumption buried down in here that the wealthy are just hoarding gold in their vaults. These vast fortunes are being invested in more wealth creation which come in the form of research and innovation or new jobs which benefits everybody. The people that have lots of money usually have that money because they're really good at deciding what is worth investing in. In other words they're more efficient at allocating money.

Contrast this with when the government allocates money. They generally decide based on what will get them reelected or what makes them look good, so we end up with the government wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on solar roadway funding which are scientifically, and thus economically unfeasible. It's a complete waste of resources.

>>10596564
You seem to be imagining some sort of world which is inhabited by secular immortal humans.

>>10596564
You missed my point entirely.

I don't have a problem with people having more money than me. But I do have a problem with a system that increasingly reduces the chances of you making the same kind of money the rich do, no matter how hard you try.

Taxing the ultra rich in order to give a fighting chance to underprivileged that can't even study or treat their health problems without being severely handicapped for a major part of their life does not sound bad to me. Specially when those ultra rich have as much wealth as the rest of their country combined.

Just like communism only works until you run out of other people's money, Capitalism always looks good until you remove every once of dignity from everyone.

>>10596398
I get that you hate them but let the do what they want, they aren't going to force you to convert to some kind of monster and study interpretive dance(which is actually a pretty cool thing to study)
Besides placing them on a pedestal is really what they are doing by themselves. The liberals and corporate media give them most of your attention to distract from the serious objectives of the libertarian left.

>>10596591
To be fair, how hard you try shouldn't be a factor in wealth, but how smart you try. IQ correlates with wealth to such an extent that it'd be more profitable to be born intelligent than rich, so I'd say capitalism is the best system we currently have from that standpoint.

There's no point in education for the poor as they're more than likely unintelligent and so it is wasted on them, but either way education is already offered for all so it's not an actual issue.

The real horror of capitalism is how it makes a parody of every value, every ounce of meaning, and couples intelligence, distrust and cunning. That is to say, capitalism is the perfect system for human nature, and to despise it is to reject humanity itself.

>>10596591

I have a few clarifying questions. How is the system reducing the chances of anyone entering the market and creating wealth and how is taxing the rich going to increase the ability or ease of people entering the market? The problem is that the more you tax the rich, the less money they have to invest in wealth creation. This is less money that can be loaned to people just entering the market with a new product or idea. Increasing taxes would result in the exact opposite of what you intend it to do.

>>10596470
integralism

>>10596564
>that a doctor deserves more than a fry cook
What makes you think this besides already-conceived notions of the prestige of these fields of work? You could argue that the fry cook provides more value than the doctor. They provide the means for people to survive at all (food), while the doctor just helps people live a little longer.

>>10596470
absolute idealism

>>10596625
Poor = low iq
Got it.

What I do know is that I'd rather be born rich than smart.

>>10596628
In my view, taxing the rich is just saying taxing who most benefits from the system.
I'm not talking about companies, I'm talking about people who own them.
You can't simply say that a good teacher, good education etc, is worth much less to a country as a whole than a guy that owns a megacorp and puts billions on offshore banks. This is stupid.

>>10596667

The position of doctor a very specialized and requires years of intense training. That alone makes it more valuable than a fry cook which can be performed by anyone with a pulse.

>>10596564
>why is inequality a problem
because the other people will eat you and hate you and eventually you will push them too far
>lots of stupid shit that misses the point

>>10596688

I don't see how you talking about taxing groups of people with money - corporations - is any different than talking about taxing individuals with money. The end result is the same; less money is available for investment. Even money that sits in banks are doing good for the economy because those banks invest that money while you're not using it.

If the goal is to make it easy for poor people to enter the market and become wealthy then we should pursue policies towards that end rather than making everybody poorer through taxation. Poor people don't pay our salaries and poor people don't have the capital to invest in risky ventures that may or may not pay off.

>>10596723
>Poor people don't pay our salaries
Where do you think the rich people get their money to pay our salaries with?

>>10596314
I have to say Mein Kampf was my first too desu. But actually nazis were capitalist as fuck

>>10596762
First thought*

The Communist Manifesto

>>10596539
Fuck off commie, those 1% worked their assess off to make that money.

>>10595867
rerum novarum

>>10595999
good post

>>10596752

People generally have money because of the products and services they exchange for money. The people that have large amounts of wealth have it because they're good at efficiently allocating it through investments. Those are the people that pay our salaries.

>>10596773
>those 1% worked their assess off to make that money.
Haha nice one

>>10596539
thats very nationalistic of you to not consider yourself in the top 1% (you are)

>>10596773

>Work your ass off to develop a new business concept == work mildly using an inheritance to build upon a rent-seeking establishment

>>10596773
>be born rich
>have elite education, networking, opportunities and upbringing
>work their asses off
heh

>>10596773
t..this is satire right?

>>10596797

I've seen socialist on this board who actually act like that.

>>10596773
>t. redneck retard

>>10596802
I was actually talking about the retarded idea that the 1% "worked their ass off" but okay

>>10596615
>they aren't going to force you to convert to some kind of monster

Their whole schtick is getting you to convert through social pressure and struggle sessions.

>>10596817

Why is it a retarded idea that rich people work hard? There are various studies out there that say higher earners tend to work longer hours. They're not digging ditches and serving fast food which is hard work but doesn't mean they're not working hard. What truly matters is the value of their work. Creating a new product and stirring a demand for it is more valuable than the generic physical labor that goes into making it and this is reflected in the prices paid to each party.

>>10596857
>"they have a certain skillset which is worth ten thousand times more than a normal person's skillset"

>>10596878

Yes. Some people are worth that much more than others in terms of the goods and services they offer. A person with the specific skillset that enables him to take control a multi-billion dollar company that provides valuable to services to wide ranges of people and not maintain the status quo, but grow that company, deserves as much as people are willing to pay him which is usually in the millions.

>>10596878

Yes. Some people are worth that much more than others in terms of the goods and services they offer. A person with the specific skillset that enables him to take control a multi-billion dollar company that provides valuable goods and services to wide ranges of people and not only maintain the status quo, but grow that company, deserves as much as people are willing to pay him which is usually in the millions.

>>10596933
but what if the blind pursuit of capital maximisation for its own sake its actually destroying everything and creating a pointless and absurd world ultimately based on speculation, fairy dust, and a military industrial war machine that could fuck up and kill us any moment now? That's what I don't get about capitalists, the naive moralistic protestant outlook in which the market is personified as a benevolent god figure which never fails to reward 'hard work'(whatever that means).

>>10596957

What if aliens attack earth? I don't know man. You're going to have to tell me how you believe capitalism is destroying everything if you want a serious answer. I don't know what the "blind pursuit of capital maximization" is supposed to mean let alone how it could destroy anything.

>>10596933
so Jeff Bezos earning 50 times more than all of NASA scientists combined is totally reasonable

>>10596980

I don't get to decide what he's worth. The investors who risked their entire fortunes for decade while Amazon failed to turn a profit until Jeff came around get to decide what he's worth to them.

>>10596773
>Undestand

>>10595867
most economical books, a system based on infinite growth is not sustainable on a planet with very limited resources
automation also plays a big part in this growth where as jobs go byebye because the companies need the profit to compete

>>10596788
this guy gets it

>>10596615
>the serious objectives of the libertarian left.
such as normalising and sexualising children amirite?
> Sexual Revolution and Children
>How the Left Took Things Too Far
>Germany's left has its own tales of abuse. One of the goals of the German 1968 movement was the sexual liberation of children. For some, this meant overcoming all sexual inhibitions, creating a climate in which even pedophilia was considered progressive

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

>>10597037
This guy gets it, kind of. I mean it is sustainable, but there are aspects of it that aren't.

We need to eat, that's basically what economics is.

>>10597069
Woah. Are you trying to tell me that a group of people whose goal is to subvert social norms and taboos is subverting a social taboo?

>>10596385
Animal farm is about the Russian revolution and stalinism. Not sure that's what OP is after but it's a decent read.

Can someone explain how The Stranger is seen as existentialists/absurdist. Is it not obvious that is about morality way more than metaphysics.

>>10597153
4chan doesn't allow threads within threads.

>>10596560
>he hasn't read miguel serrano
>he isn't aware of the true esoteric dimension of hitlerism and the black sun cultus

>>10595870
Gaddis says that he thinks Capitalism is the best system so far he just writes against its abuses

>>10597153
His outburst at the priest at the end.

>>10596980
the job of NASA 'scientists' is is but to decieve the masses about flat earth and the moon landing hoax. After the revolution, they will be shot like the pigs they are, and also elon musk, skul and bones roundearth cultists al of them, we the people had enough of their lies

>>10597217
excellent post

>>10597217

Its about time people start calling them out.

>>10597217
inb4 butthurt redditors. The truth will always cause fear.

>>10595867
https://youtu.be/EdrBeBwHenk

look into this guy. he's essentially a mutualist, kind of like Proudhon.

Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent and Heart of Darkness.

>>10597217

>2018
>Not criticizing progressism as a political project to hurdle the masses into orbit around capital
>Not using proper arguments like our dearest meme philosopher instead of 'muh m00n landins'

https://themigrationperiod.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/nicklandlureofvoid.pdf

>Ctrl+F Ruskin
>no results
smdh

>>10595870
JR?

>>10596470
gibs

>>10595870
...Money?

>>10596773
t. Trump

Also why is he/are they so fat?

>>10597718
Access to really nice foods and enough money to bang whoever.

>>10596508
found the moron

>>10597000
It's supposed to imply that's the Jewish accent he's talking with, I think.

>>10596615
> they aren't going to force you to convert to some kind of monster

yes, they are

>>10596792
>>10596788
>>10596782
triggered 3rd or 4th generation immigrant stooges detected

>>10595867
Development as freedom - Amartya Sen

disclaimer - I haven't read it. I read a book who quoted it often, but it seems to be just what you want.

>>10596980

What is it with all the Jeff Bezos hate? I don't know anything about other than him being the CEO of Amazon.

>>10595867
Strasser.

>>10595867
Green Anarchists are resolutely against both capitalism and leftism of all kinds so you could try John Zerzan. Their philosophy is a dead end though, so I can't recommend it.

>>10596385
Zinn is a filthy communist who revised history as he saw fit to suit his agenda. Kys

>>10596878
sorry i cant take degenerates like this seriously

>>10597116
The whole point is that animal farm eventually degenerated into the exact same system of the other farms, those other farms being symbols of ordinary capitalist society. So the evil into which they fell was capitalism, and that is what is critiqued. The revolutionary hopes of the animals (against capitalism) in the beginning are valid.

>>10595867
So economic illiteracy from th other end of the spectrum?

>>10595999
It’s all statism in the end that cannot I to economics.

>>10596435
audiblekek.png

>>10596591
>makes it harder to get into the market

Wrong.

>>10595867
http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land

>>10596398
That’s not an alternative to capitalism, it is capitalism. They are just trying to normalize marginalized people so they can become fully fledged consumers. too.

>>10596688
But anon, that mega corps is worth more.

>>10596435
All other needs are manufactured by capitalism.

>>10596708
So something that never going to happen, gotcha.

Volume 1 of Capital tbqhwy, I know it was written by Marx, but volume 1 is just him deconstructing and criticizing capitalism.

>>10601045
>political correctness Is capitalism

You actually have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

>>10596773
All these butt blasted (you)’s at the truth, cry more commietards.

>>10601052
So mad ramblings if someone who doesn’t know a thing about economics?

God bless capitalism and freedom.

>>10601097
This

>>10601093
only if it's a misprint with capital's cover on a milton friedman book

>>10601114
gr8 b8 m8 how’s that economic calculation problem coming along?

>>10597217
tiwib

After Capitalism and Progress and Poverty

Read the fucking Unabomber, losers.

>>10601093
>doesn't know anything about economics

My sides. Have you read it? Even if you disagree with Marx's solutions and think that they were incorrect, it impossible to deny that Capital is possibly the most thorough in depth analysis of economics in history. Sure the legitimacy of the labor theory of value and other concepts can be called in to question, but saying that the labor theory of value is completely incorrect is just idiotic.

>Search "Evola"
>Zero results
Almost all non-liberal rightwingers hate capitalism for its effects on society. Evola is a decent enough place to start with traditionalists, but half his shit is about magic, so go in open minded.
Most environmentalists hate capitalism without favoring communism (both ruin the planet). Environmentalism is not monopolized by the left- many, many right wingers are environmentalists.

>>10595945
I thought Wealth of Nations is like the Capitalist Manifesto or something

>>10601445
>it impossible to deny that Capital is possibly the most thorough in depth analysis of economics in history
When you say shit that's this stupid, it makes you look foolish

>>10601006
>The whole point is that animal farm eventually degenerated into the exact same system of the other farms, those other farms being symbols of ordinary capitalist society. So the evil into which they fell was capitalism
How do you write these asinine opinions of yours with a straight face?

>>10596398
most on the left hate SJWs as well.

We're not against going against racism and sexism, but most have realised that the majority of SJWs are an authoritarian blight

>>10595867
You called?

>>10596752
They buy things from other rich people and mega corporations. Even just selling expensive stuff to upper middle class people works better. Poor people don't drive the entirety of the economy.

>>10602008

No, we didn't

https://mises.org/library/whats-wrong-distributism

>>10596520
Capitalism's problems are not in efficiency, but in the society it produces. As long as society spins around money, we cannot truly accomodate morality and the environment into our lives

>>10605037
This is not true. Morality is another sphere entirely, and I'm sure we agree could most likely be remedied by some faith in God.

In my opinion if capitalism is to function efficiently, all it needs to do is give people an equal platform to start on. Three things need to happen to make a morally justifiable system without all of the ills of this current system.

-Limiting trading rights on equity (thereby dissolving the stock market, and the means of very wealthy individuals and families to maintain their wealth at the expense of others by no work whatsoever)
-Taxing away the inheritance (again, getting rid of the amount of money you can obtain just by doing nothing)
-Making land public property (again, getting rid of an entire class of people who obtain money by doing absolutely nothing)

>>10602008
Is that what he says when he hears a Krispy Kreme box being opened?

>>10605037


We should be concerned with efficiency because that is what lifts people out of poverty. I don't know what "accommodating morality and the environment into lives" means but I can guess that you're saying capitalism or money causes people to be immoral. Why do you believe this?

You're assuming that anyone under socialism or some other system would be less greedy or self serving.

>>10605065

What you're describing seems very close to Georgism. Essentially public ownership of land and property, but private ownership over what each individual produces from those collectively owned resources.

>>10605095
And Georgism seems morally RIGHT, doesn't it?

There is nothing wrong with Georgist policies, some very intelligent economists were Georgists, Leon Walras included.

The only challenge is IMPLEMENTATION, not if they are morally right. Everyone can see they are morally right, but the problem with politics is that the left and the right are both just governed by monetary interests.

>>10596678
This guy gets it.

>>10605095
Also, only the third point is really Georgist. In fact, that is the whole of what Georgism is about. Henry George, bless his heart, devoted his whole life to this third point. And you know what? He is still right, TO THIS DAY. Nothing has changed in 120 years. That is an extremely short time anyway. None of the social relations that led him to thinking he was right changed.

That's the difference between him and Marx. Marx was an atheist, a cold, dark soul who didn't understand practicability with life. He didn't understand that people need to work in order to live, and that you might have to force people to work in disagreeable circumstances by giving them a higher wage. All of this can be found in capitalism, even in this day and age, as corrupt as things are now. But George was a kind soul. He did understand this, and there is a certain humility that goes into understanding this principle.

Anyone that calls themselves a Georgist is really just someone who has done their research: they are a pure capitalist.

>>10605103

Practicality is the real measure of any ideology. Capitalism and communism seem morally right when put in strictly theoretical terms, but both also suffer from deficiencies because of a similar difficulty in implementing their prescribed systems properly, as you identified with Georgism.

>>10605117
>pure capitalist
>force people to work with goodies but they don't actually get better goodies than the people who won't have to work

>>10605129
Ah but with Georgism the problem is consolidated. Communism's faults can be found in the philosophy behind the actual ideology: it is unsound and based on feelings more than actual concrete facts.

With Georgism the problem closes in on the individuals who are making a living by doing nothing. And that is what we are going to want to do in the future: make sure that people who aren't doing anything have to start doing things. It really is that simple, we live in a consumerist society so the few people with a lot of money experience reality like it's a consumerist dream.

I will tell you: God did not intend reality to be that way. Have you read Progress and Poverty, perchance?

>>10605135
Did you even read my post?

>>10605095
>>10605065

I can tell you why its a bad idea. People tend to abuse things that they don't own. Think of hotels or rental car companies and observe how people treat the rooms and the cars compared to the things that they own. Think about how a logging company would treat public land if there's no incentive to plant trees that they would never personally benefit them. It would naturally result in the sort of clear cutting of forests that happened throughout the Soviet Union. You could try to pass some laws to protect the land for future use but that would quickly turn into a regulatory nightmare with the government trying to keep up with millions of different industries making use of public land.

A good rule of thumb is that for every government regulation there's a tradeoff in the form of added inefficiency because it takes some form of time or labor to for business to comply with legalities. This is an added cost to doing business that has to be paid by the consumer.

>>10605156
No, see this is why you read things.

We are talking about the land. The property on the land is not the land, and is 99.99999999% of the time not even in the ownership of the person who owns the land. They lease their land to a farmer or a construction company to build a farm or a building on their land, and that is that.

The moar you know!

>>10605166

So the trees don't count as part of the land? How does this system work in the case of the logging company?

>>10596678
This really captures what it means to be Hegelian lol

>>10605173
I don't personally believe that people would go around cutting down trees for no reason whatsoever if somehow no one owned the land, no.

>>10605201
>>10605173
To help you understand: the farmers that wanted to make farms would probably prefer the flatland, not the forest for a place to make their farms. Simple, right? I honestly think LESS deforestation would occur.

Also, the real estate problem would be fixed considerably. Speculation using land is a terrible source of inflation.

>>10595867
Try anything by Bookchin or other communalists. It's a good and holistic theory that offers nice ideas for organizing and preparing for the future. Also dialectical naturalism is a great conception and tool for viewing history. Also lots of emphasis on ecology and anthropology which is great.

>>10605216
>bookchin
please go back to /leftypol/ with the pedophiles and schizophrenic tankies faggot

>>10605218
/leftpol/ is the new hot place my man

>>10605201

We're not talking about people cutting trees down for no reason. We're talking about people using the land for profit. Let's consider how logging companies generally operate under the current system of private ownership. They have a limited amount of space and a limited amount of trees that can be cut. And since it wouldn't be practical to buy new land with more trees on it every time they finish cutting in a particular piece of land, they have every incentive to plant new ones so that they have something to cut 10 years later. This is good both for business and the environment.

Now think about how this might work with publicly owned land. What is there to encourage our logging company to care for the land by planting new trees instead of just moving on to some new land that has trees on them?

>>10605280
You can make laws with regard to that kind of thing.

Do you think this kind of behavior is really any better under our current system? They will cut down trees if they need wood no matter what. They work based on need, if people need more wood, it will be cut. There is nothing stopping them from doing that.

Your assertion is therefore misguided, they do what you said anyway. It's why the rainforest is a fraction of the size it used to be. And we DO have problems with them replanting trees, even now. But due to REGULATIONS, they have to. They don't do it because it is in their interest. Companies are only concerned with their immediate interests anyway.

Deforestation is a real problem, but has its origins in overpopulation, not whether or not land is public or private.

Any other sort of resource-related problems? I can guarantee you that if they are based on 'well then these people will go and take advantage of the environment like this', the response should be "Go ahead, they just need the capital in order to do so"

>>10605292

Yes we could make laws. The problem is that it creates an inefficiency. If not for our logging company then for the government who now has to hire more people to enforce their laws and make sure logging companies are doing what they're supposed to be doing. Under a system of private ownership of land we don't need to do that because the owners of that land have every reason to take care of it. If logging companies didn't plant new trees every time they cut they would quickly go out of business since buying new land every time they need trees to cut would cost too much.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say that people will just work based on need or cut trees as needed. We're still talking about how logging companies would operate in systems private and public ownership of land, right?

Also I'm not sure why you believe that deforestation is a result of overpopulation since the entire world could comfortably live in a piece of land the size of Texas with a population density of an average city. We don't seem to be running out of space as a species so I would like to hear your reasoning.

>>10605341
You sound like a broken record. I understand your first paragraph I addressed that in my post.

>I don't know what you're talking about when you say that people will just work based on need or cut trees as needed. We're still talking about how logging companies would operate in systems private and public ownership of land, right?
This might be the source of our problems. I am telling you that it literally doesn't matter. Because of the free market, regardless of if the land is public or not, the same amount of trees would be cut. I don't see how you could argue differently.

Also I'm not sure why you believe that deforestation is a result of overpopulation since the entire world could comfortably live in a piece of land the size of Texas with a population density of an average city. We don't seem to be running out of space as a species so I would like to hear your reasoning.
Our previous economic philosophy was based on consumption. We are very much more populous than we need to be. Just a simple travel around will show you that. There is so much people, it is already very dense. I don't know where you live, but almost anywhere I go I can see a very dense population.

>>10595867
Stirner. It's pretty much the first debasement of property, and Marx hated him.