/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12850421]

What are the most important books defending capitalism and free markets? Something like Marx's Capital but for right wing thought.
Is there even anything outside of the Austrian school?

[Anonymous No.12850476]

>>12850421
Road to Serfdom is GOAT
>Is there even anything outside of the Austrian school?
Rand.

[Anonymous No.12850494]

>Marx's Capital but for right wing thought
Ayn Rand, unironically.

[Anonymous No.12850499]

Man, Economy and State w/ Power and Market
Anatomy of the State
Human Action
The Theory of Money and Credit
Karl Marx and the Close of His System
Those are pretty important if you're serious about it.

[Anonymous No.12850710]

>>12850494
>unironically
Is this irony?

[Anonymous No.12850719]

Marx's Capital. Only brainlets think Marx thought capitalism was overall bad.

Also "Something like Marx's Capital but for right wing thought " implies Capital was somehow about socialism which it wasn't. Marx barely wrote on socialism at all and always in the vaguest terms.

[Anonymous No.12850829]

>>12850421
Capitalism is left-wing.

[Anonymous No.12850834]

Marx would be considered right wing if the book was published today. Read the fucking thing.

[Anonymous No.12850972]

>>12850834
Then what are the major books for left wingers today?

[Anonymous No.12850985]

>>12850421
>Is there even anything outside of the Austrian school?
The Chicago school has a lot and the classical economists

[Anonymous No.12850992]

>>12850834
This. Before I read Marx, I consumed soi products on a regular basis, identified as 'queer' and laughed at snl jokes about the orange man being bad. Marx gave me the courage to hit the gym and pledge myself to heterosexuality. Thank you, Karl Marx.

>>12850972
the emerald tables of hermes trismegistus,
Chants de Maldoror by Lautreamont
Anything by Guy Debord but specially panegyric

[Anonymous No.12851015]

classical liberalism and neoliberalism are failed projects without anything resembling a coherent theoretical base. What you are looking for does not exist.

>>12850834

what could this even possibly mean

[Anonymous No.12851092]

>>12850421
traditional right wing thought does not consider economics to be the center of life, let alone the driving force of history. american capitalists with a distaste for muslims are NOT the same right wingers as monarchists, fascists or traditionalists. what you're looking for is probably best represented in the book you posted, add some hoppe perhaps; or Ayn Rand, for some reason libertarians love her.

[Anonymous No.12851126]

>>12850421
You can't really arrive at a scientific analysis of Capitalism by setting out to "defend" it. When you analyze capitalism, you naturally notice that exploitation exists, that there are inefficiencies inherent in the circuit of capital, that capital creates disincentives to technological progress, that planning in kind is possible, and so on. Imagine being a biologist or dentist whose goal is to defend wisdom teeth.

If you really just don't want to read Marx, then just read Smith and Ricardo. Then read modern Ricardians. Also, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND Anwar Shaikh's book on Capitalism and the accompanying lectures:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=DD0B27231F6E7CABEF184B616A59DAFE
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go
They are a modern masterpiece, entirely based on theory and empirical evidence, but be warned: Shaikh's work is NOT for brainlets who don't know any math or physics.

>>12850719
>Also "Something like Marx's Capital but for right wing thought " implies Capital was somehow about socialism which it wasn't. Marx barely wrote on socialism at all and always in the vaguest terms.
Capital Vol 2 actually goes a very long way to describe socialism. Because of its focus on the circuits of capital, Marx only has to point out the various parts of the circuit that would be cut out by socialized production, and he does.

[Anonymous No.12851131]

Land

[Anonymous No.12851470]

>>12850421
pretty much the manifesto of the world finance empire, albeit accidentally

[Anonymous No.12851853]

Read: John Locke, Thomas Paine, Hobbes, Stuart Mill, Rousseau...

Get a firm grasp on why private property is central to the ideas of enlightenment and must be protected at all costs in a free society.

[Anonymous No.12852911]

Marx's capital it's a critique of capitalism, so the equivalent would be a critique of communism

[Anonymous No.12853182]

>this thread

>>my mind is made up
>>books for this

[Anonymous No.12853193]

>>12850421
>right wing
>thought
pick one

[Anonymous No.12853199]

>>12850421
Read Hayek and Misses.

[Anonymous No.12853219]

How much pseudoscience is there in all of that?

No one reads Newton today. Why should I read the Capital?

Can someone explain to me?

[Anonymous No.12853243]

>>12853219
The Capital was a meme book even for his time. Only losers and pseuds worship Marx, and by worship I really mean worship since Marx is literally a fucking prophet for them.

[Anonymous No.12853289]

>>12853219
no one reads Newton, but people do read Aristotle.

Marx is pretty interesting, even when he's objectivly wrong.

[Anonymous No.12853455]

>>12853219
>No one reads Newton today.
yet his theories are taught in every intro to physics course, because they are and were correct.
On the other hand, Smith, Ricardo, and Marx aren't taught BECAUSE they were correct. Scientific economics became too dangerous to capitalism after Marx. Similar with anthropology, history, sociology, etc.

[Anonymous No.12853496]

>>12850421
Fanged Noumena

[Anonymous No.12853639]

>>12853455
>it isn't taught because it's too dangerous!

Isn't that what conspiracy theorists always say about their beliefs?

[Anonymous No.12854951]

>>12850834
Holy shit lmao

[Anonymous No.12854955]

>>12851131
>>12853496
Explain

[Anonymous No.12855502]

>>12854955
Not them but I'll say that his stuff doesn't 'defend' Capitalism, it just offers a description of it framed in a way that you might find appealing. When 'evils' become certainties you look at them a different way.

[Anonymous No.12855553]

Nick Land is literally a anti-communist Marxist who added "And that's a good thing" to the end of Marxist critique of capital.

[Anonymous No.12855592]

>>12853219
I would say that for every wildly wrong things said in capital there are 2 valid and insightful points

[Anonymous No.12855596]

>>12855553
kek

[Anonymous No.12855603]

>>12850829

[Anonymous No.12855683]

Might want to look at the possible medieval inceptions of it since they too may have been a sort of deviation from the traditional social structure at the time.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3077.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm
https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20School%20of%20Salamanca_3.pdf

[Anonymous No.12855709]

>>12855553
Sure but he also paints it as essentially inescapable.

[Anonymous No.12855728]

>>12855603
Imagine believing this.

[Anonymous No.12855732]

>>12851126
>exploitation exists
Ever had your argument have it's roots cut out from under it? Watch this:
>In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the strong
All the inefficiencies you allude to is in truth the fault, always, of the mixed economy and interventionism. Which are then blamed on capitalism. The host that is being parasitized.

[Anonymous No.12855733]

>>12855553
Science is the shadow-souled in the Allegory of the Cave, standing up and attempting to capture a secondary image of the fire through analysis of each flicker; accelerationism is the flicker-souled, caught between mumbling 'put my show back on' and chanting 'MAKE IT BRIGHTER! MAKE IT BRIGHTER! MAKE IT BRIGHTER!'

[Anonymous No.12855747]

>>12851853
>>12850476
>>12850494
This. The philosopher and the applied scientist right and left respectively. Joined in handshake at one common cause of reason and the potent power and morality of the traded coin, stamped in gold.

[Anonymous No.12855951]

>no one posts pic related

All u need senpai

[Anonymous No.12855981]

>>12850834
Why? Because he insulted niggers or something?
You have a fucking retarded grasp on politics.

[Anonymous No.12855983]

>capitalism and free markets
>right wing

[Anonymous No.12855990]

Pinker
Peterson

[Anonymous No.12856014]

>>12850992
You. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.12856020]

>>12850421
>Inb4 someone who never read a word by Popper says Open Society and its Enemies

[Anonymous No.12856024]

>>12851126
>Free trade
>Exploitation

[The Nomad !N8Yn.I/WbM No.12856096]

>>12855732
>objectively defining value and effort outside of the compensation received from them

[Anonymous No.12856126]

>>12855732
>Your janitor doesn't deserve shit, he's a dumbass
Imagine genuinely believing that capitalism successfully rewards hard work and innovation more than pandering to retards and turning everyone into the most gelatinous, featureless blob of consumerism your advertising algorithms can manage to mold

[The Nomad !N8Yn.I/WbM No.12856171]

>>12856126
>the average person is a retard
So this is the power of socialism. What defines benefit and the market itself if not for the people? If they are helped by what the market has given them, who are you to complain?

[Anonymous No.12856381]

>>12856126
They allow themselves to turn into that because of degeneration of philosophy in the culture. Blamimg this instead on the economic arena this happens to occur is inane and utterly backwards. Only determinist louts who can only extrospect the reasons for their and others behavior think like this.
This is precisely why Ayn Rand stressed that the battle need be fought at base in the universities and not. Philosophy drives everything and that absurdity that it is instead man's evironment that does it is worse than useless.

[Anonymous No.12856426]

>>12855951
Adam Smith?

[Anonymous No.12856862]

>>12856381
You can absolutely blame capitalism for instigating the feedback loop that produces the problem. Capitalism feeds off that mediocrity and rewards it above anything else.
>But it's a human problem!
And for a real life system of real life people, human flaws have to be taken into account. Maybe capitalism would work in the shining city on a hill but so would anything else.
>>12856171
I have just as many qualms about socialism as I do about capitalism, trust me.
>What defines benefit and the market itself if not for the people?
Virtue? Health? Culture? Stop being a neoliberal and understand that some people still have plenty of values other than attaining material comforts.

[Anonymous No.12857416]

>>12850834

[Anonymous No.12857591]

>>12856862
Define to me real quick what the fuck that oft dropped philosophycaly nebulous term "human flaws" means.

[Anonymous No.12857633]

>>12857591
>philosophycaly
Fuck you self. SKIM first

[Anonymous No.12857676]

>>12857591
The bottomless greed and fetishization of power that lead billionaires to never be satisfied with their fortunes and to always want to see their numbers increase, even when they couldn't ever exhaust their fortunes in a hundred lifetimes.
The average person's capacity to succumb to lazy, valueless hedonism and be fed absolute garbage, growing fat, lazy, and unmotivated. The corporatist's capacity to take advantage of this and then eventually contribute however he can to its endless cycle.

[Anonymous No.12857717]

>>12853455
Newton was wrong though.

[Anonymous No.12857753]

>>12857676
What proof can you give that billionaires are obsessed with their fortunes?

[Anonymous No.12857811]

>>12857676
Greed is viewed utterly neutrally in Objectivist ethics. The potential for evil in greed is only capacitative, not inherent and only insofar as the actor has adopted mis- or dis-integrative thinking methods.
In one of Ayn Rand's interviews she famously said "I named one of my chapters "The Utopia of Greed", deliberately, as a challenge to the corruption endemic in our culture's philosophy"I paraphrase
I love her for that line.

[Anonymous No.12857819]

>>12850719
>>12850421
Marx' Capital in combination with a history book of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.12857830]

>>12857717
No he wasn't. His theory describes reality accurately under certain circumstances. It just wasn't the whole picture. That's why his formulas are still taught and used today.

[Anonymous No.12857876]

>>12855683
Very good post.
I've always been interested in the School of Salamanca

[Anonymous No.12858226]

>>12857753
Their existence. A few million dollars will give someone a lifetime of comfort. A hundred million dollars is enough for a person to live a life of unimaginable luxury and to set up their entire family on the same path for generations. Why hoard more if not out of greed and a desire for power?
If you're going to play dumb and demand more "proof" of something this abstract then you can fuck off.
>>12857811
I don't give a damn if Rand liked greed or not. It's a despicable trait. Any philosophy that encourages it is repulsive to me.

[Anonymous No.12858259]

>>12857830
The way he thought about gravity is plain wrong, even if it created a functional system. This isn't to say he wasn't crucial.

[Anonymous No.12858293]

>>12855732
That argument is pretty idealistic and by no means the general situation. The man at the top could simply be a greedy jew playing dirty and not much better than his workers. I guessed that we already abandoned these romantic views of the reasonable and illustrated man.

[Anonymous No.12858330]

>>12858259
The way he thought about gravity is correct in all the applications for which he used it. Physics is a science of modeling and approximations, it doesn't declare reality, it tries to describe it and cannot ever do so flawlessly.

[Anonymous No.12858338]

>>12858226
Billionaires aren't hoarding money. Nearly every dollar of their fortune, even the spare change they leave in some bank savings account is being invested which is creating wealth for them and ultimately everyone else. When those billionaires give entrepreneurs money to innovate and create new business, everyone benefits. Billionaires becomes billionaires and stay billionaires because they're really good and choosing what things are worth investing in and so they should be left alone to grow richer or poorer based on that skill.

[Anonymous No.12858357]

>>12858226
Why? What do you understand meta-ethically about the concept of greed?

[Anonymous No.12858371]

>>12851015
>every single successful nation is pro market liberal

Could you even be more wrong

[Anonymous No.12858376]

>>12858330
We don't need to say with 100% certainty what reality is in order to be able to say what it isn't. Newton's approximation was immensely useful. But it was wrong, and we have superior methods of observation that allow us to declare that. Just that.

[Anonymous No.12858390]

>>12858338
An Objectivist I forget the name of once put this beautifully, I paraphrase: "'Trickle down economics' has been used like and as the anticoncept it is. It is a tactical obscurantist meme meant to dissolve in fog capitalisms operant nature and actual effects. It isn't "trickle down economics", it's "flood-down economics"

[Anonymous No.12859743]

>>12858376
Every other superior method of observation is another approximation. All models, all incorrect. That's what physics is and how it works.

[Anonymous No.12859758]

>>12858338
Huh. Why've they gotten so much better at creating wealth for themselves but so much worse at creating wealth for everyone else? Do you think they need help? Are they forgetting what their job is?

[Anonymous No.12859821]

[Anonymous No.12859836]

>>12859758
Corporations are still being crippled by regulations and taxes. Once they're freed of those burdens everything will be fixed by the pure nature of the free market.

[Anonymous No.12860525]

>>12859758
Waged are not a good measure of wealth. We can be paid the same as somebody in the 70's in terms of dollars but the fact is we all have microwaves, air conditioners, and cell phones. We are much wealthier than we have ever been.

Even if you only count what we get paid we're better off because we get so many benefits on top of those dollar wages.

[Anonymous No.12861491]

>>12856426
The classics are too outdated for today

[Anonymous No.12861512]

>>12850421
>opposing marx means falling into another kike trap
Cringe and vomitpilled

[Anonymous No.12862226]

>>12859836
Large corporations don't even fucking pay their taxes half the time you retard
If you think anyone is being "crippled" by taxes and regulations you're either baiting or a very gullible boomer

[Anonymous No.12862436]

>>12860525
>But you have a fridge!
In the 1960s a single man's wages from a job he got with a high school diploma could support his wife and kids in a nice suburban house.
Now the average American is in debt, will never own a house, and even two working professionals would struggle to support children. The population being stagnant is why this immigration crisis is so widespread and such a contentious issue - if the people in charge wanted it over, public opinion would magically be swayed that way and the problem would be fixed, but cheap labor is cheap labor.
Don't let phones and microwaves convince you that everything is fine and rosy. Do you think Russian serfs were just whiners who should've appreciated their widespread access to samovars?

[Anonymous No.12863513]

>>12861491
>classics are too outdated for today
More like you heterodox dissenters are always on a pathological quest to topple the established civilization for whatever your replacement ideology might be.

[Anonymous No.12863537]

>>12862226
This is why their books are cheap?

[Anonymous No.12863557]

>>12860525
This.

True wealth is not in wages, but the collective experience redistributed via capital.

We are rich beyond any historical peasant's imagination.

[Anonymous No.12863577]

>>12863537
Physical copies might be significantly costlier as they should. Books aren't the only thing they sell or maybe middle man for.

[Anonymous No.12863594]

>>12862436
Anyone know that woman from Denmark (I think) who gave a talk on the future being renting and sharing space, borrowing all media, and essentially living in a coop/capitalist utopia? It was agenda 21 the Ted Talk, basically, and I think she was with the UN.

[Anonymous No.12863603]

>>12850476
Not a Lolberg but someone recommended this to me here and it was pretty good.

[Anonymous No.12863604]

>>12850421
>What are the most important books defending capitalism and free markets?
Karl Marx - Capital

[Anonymous No.12864133]

>>12863594
Was she excited about it or lamenting it? That sounds fucking awful.

[Anonymous No.12864212]

>>12864133
A lot of normies are excited by that kind of stuff because they sincerely believe it contributes to saving the planet, providing a sense of meaning, community and even heroism to the individual.

[Anonymous No.12864495]

>>12864212
That stuff does/would provide a sense of community though. Buying a house in the middle of nowhere and threatening to shoot anyone who comes near you and your “library” is antithetical to community.

[Anonymous No.12864575]

>>12864495
The vast majority of people who have owned houses were never that autistic about it and you know it.
It is realistically impossible to create a genuine community in a world where nobody lives in the same place for more than six months or has any property to call their own. You end up with nonsense like self-professed "internet communities."

[Anonymous No.12864634]

>>12864575
As an urban renter who grew up in a prosperous small town that’s bullshit. Real face-to-face communities of people who watch out for one-another are strong in my neighborhood. People back home were honestly pretty autistic about any kind of perceived intrusion and the churches and other organizations of like-minded folks were pretty weak compared to what I see in the city. Admittedly I live in a nice part of the city with a famously educated and affluent population, but people move in and out and mostly rent. They’re just quick to find friends and the community incorporates newcomers well.

Also just by the numbers, apartment dwellers take part in community groups and government at nearly the same rate as homeowners. It’s a negligible difference.

[Anonymous No.12864840]

>>12864495
>>12864634
I guess you could say it provides a sense of community in the same sense that an ant farm is a community.

[Anonymous No.12864913]

>>12856426
If you want to read about livestock and grains for 200 pages sure.

[Anonymous No.12864934]

>>12862436
The value of labor power has been drastically reduced. Boomers and low iq pseuds will tell you it's a natural process that's happened because of automation and the AI meme. Reality is it's due to mass immigration flooding the labour market, it's expensive to have kids because the market doesn't need you to have them when it can just get some poor sod from Mexico to empty your trash or India to be a codemonkey on low wages.

[Anonymous No.12864959]

>>12864840
What other sense is there? People are ants. The only thing that would make a human community unlike an ant colony is the complexity of the human hierarchy. In terms of pure living arrangement, you can attain hierarchy maybe through feudalism if you want, but as a serf you will still find yourself as many ants under the toe of a great big child. To escape "living-community as ant-colony" you necessitate hierarchy through culture control.

[Anonymous No.12865050]

>>12864840
Have you not seen how people lived for most of history? I'd just about guarantee that what you consider a "proper" amount of totally private living space wasn't normal for anyone but the aristocracy anywhere until the 1940s. You're simultaneously arguing for "community," and decrying anyone who wants to live in one.