is there a right wing equivalent of this?

[Anonymous No.13320567]

or is there really no in depth book on right wing economic thought? inb4 "basic economics". i mean above a highschool economics book please.

[Anonymous No.13320678]

There are tomes on Austrian economics, but Austrian economics is as dumb as MMT.

[Anonymous No.13320691]

No because there is no such thing as a right wing intellectual. All the intellectuals and the talent is on the left. The right is full of illiterate retards who make up fantasies.

[Anonymous No.13320698]

>>13320567
Actually basic economics because right wingers have no theory otherwise, everything's based on idealist crap. Far right groups read left wingers (like Gramsci or Deleuze) and change it to fit into their own ideology.

Liberals might say Adam Smith because they heard about him but they don't realise he was actually very critical of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.13320706]

>>13320567
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ld8fxzEXZ2Qz/

check out this video and this channel , he reads allot of fascist economics and philosophy books , he also have a video of his bookshelf if you want book recommendation

[Anonymous No.13320718]

>>13320706
also every fascist country uses a different economy based on what fits the people

[Anonymous No.13320730]

>>13320706
I find it interesting you link an obscure video of someone talking about books instead of, you know, JUST SAYING THE BOOKS. Fuck sake man.

[Anonymous No.13320743]

>>13320691
Most of these dudes are right leaning but avoided the label to be accepted in the left majority academia

[Anonymous No.13320749]

For the last time, Marx wasn't left wing.

[Anonymous No.13320753]

>>13320691
Ts elliot, nick land, spengler, evola, hegel, aquinas, heidegger etc...

[Anonymous No.13320762]

>>13320749
One hell of a claim there friend.

[Anonymous No.13320764]

>>13320567
You should know that it’s poor form to inb4 as op.

[Anonymous No.13320782]

>>13320730
i tried to help , i cant help him so i give him a channel with a massive book shelf about fascist economy and philosophy he can pick and choose , AT LEAST IM NOT FLEXING ABOUT MY TAKES and actually helping him

[Anonymous No.13320819]

>>13320753
>eliot
fraud. second rate. means absolutely nothing to me.
>land
retard that should not be taken seriously. also a literal who.
>spengler
non-entity
>evola
non-entity
>hegel
??
>aquinas
christcucks have nothing important to say. also it is dishonest to say any pre-modern thinkers would be in support of your narrative.
>heidegger
the petit-bourgeois of German philosophy

[Anonymous No.13320824]

François Quesnay's Tableau économique

[Anonymous No.13320831]

The problem is the left is progressivism so 'the right' is constantly redifined by 'whatever the left doesn't like anymore'

[Anonymous No.13320832]

>>13320753
>aquinas
imagine being this anachronistic

>nick land
>evola
pseud nobodies

[Anonymous No.13320853]

>>13320831
It's been pretty well defined for a while actually. You're just too caught up in current politics. You probably spend time complaining about sjw's.

But most of the time, ppro-capitalism = right wing. Anti-capitalist = left wing. Also liberalism is right wing. It and neo-liberalism have been the major players of the past century in the west.

[Anonymous No.13320867]

>>13320730
what, do you think that guys READS?

[Anonymous No.13320901]

>>13320853
the far-right has pretty much always been hostile or ambivalent to capitalism

[Anonymous No.13320914]

>>13320853
>most of the time, ppro-capitalism = right wing. Anti-capitalist = left wing

[Anonymous No.13320936]

>>13320567
There's plenty, Nudge just won a Nobel Prize and espouses libertarian thought. Perhaps Franklin's work or Wealth of Nations if you're into somewhat conservative takes on aggregate wealth.

I will say that taking a slanted opinion and treating it like truth is intellectually dishonest. I am right wing and trust the science over texts any day of the week. There's a clear difference between theorizing something and proving it. Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's true or the ideas are ironclad. Communism proved to be a huge failure and that's one of the most cited and influential books out there, what does that say about the practice of ideology?

[Anonymous No.13321346]

>>13320936
>Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's true or the ideas are ironclad. Communism proved to be a huge failure and that's one of the most cited and influential books out there
this lets me know you're a pseud who's never read Capital

[Anonymous No.13321366]

>>13320718
No, they all use the same economy (capitalist one) because they have no choice.

[Anonymous No.13321374]

>>13320567
The actual equivalent of Marx's Capital on the right would be Mises Human Action. Both shouldn't be read.

>>13320678
One's empirical the other's based on their own made up methodology, lmao

[Anonymous No.13321375]

>>13321346
You don't need to read Capital to realize Communism will never work

[Anonymous No.13321535]

>>13320567

[Anonymous No.13321611]

>>13320832
Evola is good. Land is the pseud.

[Anonymous No.13321617]

>>13320743
That is literally not true.

[Anonymous No.13321622]

>>13320678
>shitting on mmt for no reason

[Anonymous No.13321705]

>>13321375
You need to read Capital to understand what communism is.

[Anonymous No.13321717]

>>13320567
say no more fagz, Wealth of the Nation

end of discussion, end of thread, go read it you cucks and you will LOVE capitalism, if not then go have a shit in venezuela and wipe your ass with your Karl Marx shit books

[Anonymous No.13321915]

>>13321622
Go suck AOC's toes.

[Anonymous No.13322162]

>>13321375
you missed the point which only further proves my point you fucking pseud

[Anonymous No.13322340]

>>13320936
>>13321717
>not knowing that Marx was influenced by whealth of nations.
This is almost reddit tier level of cluelesnes. Don´t get me wrong:Whealth of Nations is one of the best economics related books and should be mandatory reading imo. But that isnt an excuse for ignorance.

[Anonymous No.13322341]

>>13320936
>economists circle jerking over equations that don't apply to reality
>told that its not science
>f-fine i'll just m-make my own prize! i didn't want your medal anyway!
>The award's official name is The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

absolutely buttblasted

[Anonymous No.13322523]

>>13321717
>You will love capitalism if you read this work that condemns rent seeking, absentee ownership and the "Free market". "The Free hand of the market" is never once seen as a thing solely creates good
>Yo man you're just gonna love yourself some right wing politics when you read the works of this guy who thinks progressive tax rates are morally just and logical, and that unions/guilds are actually good.

[Anonymous No.13322578]

>>13322341
>Given Popper’s falsificationism, there seems little hope of understanding how extreme simplifications can be legitimate or how current economic practice could be scientifically reputable. Economic theories and models are almost all unfalsifiable, and if they were, the widespread acceptance of Friedman’s methodological views would insure that they are not subjected to serious test. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/
Even according to the neolib shill Pooper economics isn't a science.

[Anonymous No.13322584]

>liking capitalism
>right wing

OH NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.13322599]

>>13320691
>The right is full of illiterate retards who make up fantasies.
>What is Giovanni Gentile

[Anonymous No.13322603]

>>13320567

[Anonymous No.13322610]

>>13320567

how 'bout The Wealth of Nations

[Anonymous No.13322642]

>>13322610
Liberal freemarketards are not right wing

[Anonymous No.13322662]

>>13320567

A college economics text book? If you're looking for a broad defense of free market economics I would try Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek.

[Anonymous No.13322687]

>>13322610
You mean that work by that scottish dude who was into progressive taxation, condemned the free market, and thought rent was immoral?

[Anonymous No.13322708]

>>13320901
>AHCTUALLY FASCISTS ARE THE BIGGEST ENIMY OF CAPITALISM

[Anonymous No.13322711]

>>13320753
>Hegel
Brain cancer. Also, quite good for being a conservative dipshit.
>Land
He is beyond left-right. His tempo is about libertarian and autoritarian. Couldn't say he is right wing, since his aim is total deterritorialization, and that is something right wing don't want.
>Heidegger
Could say he is a right wing phil. May say, he is, prolly, the best intellectual the modern right wing could have.

[Anonymous No.13322718]

>>13320743
you are legitimately retarded

[Anonymous No.13322724]

>>13322708
>WE WUZ KILLIN KAPITALIST HEHE
>also making class struggle capitalist shit
Fascism is the most brainlet philosophy ever.

[Anonymous No.13322729]

>>13320853
I thought left was more leaning to equality and right was less

[Anonymous No.13322762]

>>13321375
Because you haven't read Capital the opinion you just expressed is invalid and worthless.

Should probably read and engage with it. Then you can knock yourself out talking shit.

[Anonymous No.13322842]

>>13322724
>There can't be any ideologies that don't relate to either capitalism or socialism
kek

[Anonymous No.13322913]

>>13322687
>condemned the free market
Where did you get that from? He was against protectionism. It was that which made him revolutionary, because he lived in a time where tariffs were a huge part of government revenue for major powers. He basically made the case for comparative advantage in international trade in the 18th century.

[Anonymous No.13322931]

>>13322162
>>13322762
>Every state that was communist wasn't actually communist, pseud!
Great fucking replies retard. You never explained how my opinion is invalid

[Anonymous No.13322935]

>>13322340
Neither should be mandatory reading. They might be historically significant but science doesn't progress by sticking to old tomes.

Biologists don't read the Origin of Species and physicists don't read Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, they read textbooks which are constantly being cycled out.

[Anonymous No.13322946]

>>13322935
What a moronic statement.

[Anonymous No.13322961]

>>13322842
I'm not saying that. I'm saying fascism is a lie to cover capitalist maners, you cumbrain.

[Anonymous No.13322970]

>>13322961
>cover capitalist maners
Tell me, have you heard of corporatism? Or are you really just a brainwashed commie?

[Anonymous No.13322979]

>>13322970
Not even a commie. Communism is not anti-capitalist either.

[Anonymous No.13322990]

>>13320567
the origin of species
every time communists post in these threads they reveal their myopia to the world. economics as ideology is for soulless midwit bugmen.

[Anonymous No.13322994]

>>13320691
Pic unrelated?

[Anonymous No.13323000]

>>13322970
>Communism is not anti-capitalist either
Good luck telling that to anybody, communist or capitalist. Communism that is not anti-capitalist is the butchered modern-day Chinese version of communism. It isn't legitimate communism, and is shunned by anyone who claims to be a commie.
I loved how you dodged the corporatism question btw.

[Anonymous No.13323002]

>>13322961
fascism isn't really anything and barely ever existed to begin with, yet it still exists in some bizzaro hyperreality only inhabited by e-anarkids and communists

[Anonymous No.13323009]

>>13323000
Oof
Meant for: >>13322979

[Anonymous No.13323028]

>>13320819
You are quite the analytic.

[Anonymous No.13323163]

>>13322913
He uses the term "Free market" to denote an uncontrolled market free from human concerns, and claims that this is detrimental to the well being of humans.

He was into trade, which in a time where everyone was a mercantilist made him unusual, but by modern standards he would not exactly be considered laisez faire.

[Anonymous No.13323187]

>>13322729
thats because you are american and you get your politics from media

[Anonymous No.13323222]

>>13320567
define "right"

neoliberals/liberals?
hyperreactionaries?
fascists?

[Anonymous No.13323347]

>>13323222
anything the left deems not us

[Anonymous No.13323362]

>>13320691
>Pseud Parade
Lmao

[Anonymous No.13323373]

>>13320567
There is no counterpart because there is no point in having a counterpart of something shitty.

[Anonymous No.13323422]

>>13322599
An illiterate retard who made up fantasies.

[Anonymous No.13323493]

>>13320567
Yes, it's called "all of economics". The text you're looking for which directly refutes all Marxist concepts is "The Problem of Value" by Friedrich Hayek, which was the final word on the matter, nearly a century ago. But don't stop there. I'd strongly encourage even a simpleton like you to read Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" (where, as an aside, the concept of UBI was first suggested). And this is to say nothing of just, say, "having eyes and contrasting Cuba and the Soviet Union and Venezuela with places actually fucking worth living in."

Honestly, I fucking dare any of you to apply even to a master's program believing in this trash. I deduct a full letter grade from my undergraduate students for even wearing Che Guevara bullshit to my class.

And where are the fucking mods? This has nothing to do with literature. Why is there always a Marxist thread frothing with imbeciles? >>>/biz/ was created to contain all the fucking goldbugs and Paulistinians from /pol/ and the same fate should await these monkeys.

[Anonymous No.13323516]

>>13320567
Not really, but Human Action by Von Mises--combined with Atlas Shrugged for the dramatic component lacking in Mises--comes closest.

[Anonymous No.13323518]

>>13320853
I'm rightwing and more anticapitalist than any leftist that has ever lived. I can say the same about a good portion of living and dead rightists too. Leftist anticapitalism today is, at best, a fashion trend. If you try to make it more than that you will be ejected. Furthermore, the present meme of capitalism did not exist when the left-right distinction was born.

[Anonymous No.13323530]

>>13323493
'all of economics' is a joke. Kill yourself antihuman cuckold.

[Anonymous No.13323544]

no
fascism was always an image based movement. Gommunism was text based and literary.
The Austrian school was right wing and more accurate than marx.

Weber trumps them all but is not in fashion

[Anonymous No.13323572]

why were none of the greatest men in history left wing?

[Anonymous No.13323586]

>>13322341
>economists circle jerking over equations that dont apply to reality
Meanwhile, economists have been applying resoundingly successful techniques based on axioms determined damn near mathematically to effectively enslave the entire human population into debt-servitude so efficiently that the planet is on the brink of death, while everyone else can only hopelessly sit around and pontificate about how some dude who died more than century ago was actually right the whole time. The only surprising part is how you can manage to still talk through the grave-soil that economists are shoveling over your head every moment of every second of ever day.
But hey, it's all just bullshit that doesn't apply to reality because you ideologically oppose the ethical results, right?

[Anonymous No.13323608]

>>13323493
>I deduct a full letter grade from my undergraduate students for even wearing Che Guevara bullshit to my class.
Cringe. You can make your point without such sad lies anon

[Anonymous No.13323613]

If you're looking for a book that's antithetical to Capital, you're probably not looking for an economics book anon. Capital isn't really about "economics" and more like a theory of value.

I'd suggest something by Nietzsche, like Will to Power. Stirner is a meme answer, but I've never read him so I don't feel I can suggest him.

I should add the caveat that the fact that Marx is still taken seriously is to me the complete most proof of "teh jooz" as /pol/ styles them. Everything he says is horse shit, and you're either utterly brainwashed or cripplingly retarded if you believe ANY of it. Don't at me.

[Anonymous No.13323625]

>>13323572
Stalin? Lenin? Robespierre? Orwell? Wat Tyler? Thomas Sankara? Che Guevara? Sergei Eisenstein? H G Wells? Jesus? Tolstoy? Hemingway? Victor Hugo? Dimitrov? Sartre? Camus? Ho Chi Minh?

[Anonymous No.13323628]

>>13323625
none of those people were even 1/10th as great a person as someone like julius caesar

[Anonymous No.13323630]

>>13323613
>Don't at me
This isn't Twitter you cringeworthy cunt

[Anonymous No.13323637]

>>13323628
Not true. But maybe you should try this regardless.

[Anonymous No.13323648]

>>13323637
>Not true
lol all of those people you mentioned combined don't even reach the level of caesar

[Anonymous No.13323653]

>>13323586
>Oh hey anon, you haven’t forgotten that the causal flow goes from procedural knowledge in industry (techne) to formalized academic models (episteme), and not the other way around again? You’ll stop being an IYI one day

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1319/aa4cda38cf8b5452739100c8506555e367cc.pdf

[Anonymous No.13323662]

>>13320567
Right-wingers should be anti-social sciences on principle, I think.

[Anonymous No.13323664]

>>13323648
Repeat yourself again lol maybe you'll convince me. Regardless, read Parenti's book to see a why Caeser himself had some left wing credentials.

[Anonymous No.13323674]

>>13323493
Hayek, Friedman etc. are liberals, they can only be right-wing in the bizarro American context where the anarchists are "right-wing" and the theocratic authoritarians are left-wing.

[Anonymous No.13323828]

>>13320567
ANOther question. Is there any point to reading Kapital? I have planned on reading it soon.

[Anonymous No.13323867]

>>13320743
actual right wing cope to deal with leftists having a better range of serious theoretical content

[Anonymous No.13323929]

I can't read but I can outlift all of you, I guess I win.

[Anonymous No.13324168]

The Bible

[Anonymous No.13324197]

>>13323653
>experience necessarily precedes inference

Why is this not more obvious to these people?

[Anonymous No.13324205]

>>13320567
>i mean above a highschool economics book please
>Capital
lol

[Anonymous No.13324214]

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf