Books that critique capitalism and consumerism

[Anonymous No.22923098]

What are some books that critique capitalism and consumerism... from an aristocratic mindset instead of a Marxist one? Fiction or non-fiction.

[Anonymous No.22923114]

>>22923098
Wealth of nations unironically. Rothbards austrian perspective on a history of economic thought is a capitalist book but it will tell you all the wrong people to read.

[Anonymous No.22923201]

Nothing could be more detestable than credit, where we see it as a so-called science, which, from a few general objections applied by the common sense of all the positive aryan eras, has been able to extract by wanting to give it a dogmatic cohesion, the greatest and most dangerous practical nonsense; which, by seizing only too much of the confidence of a public sensitive to the influence of its sesquipedalia verba, rises to the fatal role of a true heresy by giving itself the air of dominating, of gluttoning, of accomodating in it's views religion, laws, mores. Basing the whole of human life and, likewise, the life of peoples on these words that have become cabalistic in it's schools, to produce and to consume, it calls honorable what is only natural and just: maneuvrial labour, and the word honor loses all the sublimity of its primitive meaning. It makes the private economy the highest of virtues, and by exalting the advances of prudence for the individual and the good deeds of peace for the state, devotion, public fidelity, courage and fearlessness almost become vices at the discretion of it's maximes. It is not a science, for the most miserable negation of the true needs of man, and of the most holy, forms its narrow base. It is a merit of a miller and a spinner displaced from his modest rank and proposed to the admiration of empires.

[Anonymous No.22923208]

I would tell you but if it became associated with 4chan it would have a weaker effect on the world

[Anonymous No.22923214]

>>22923098
there's already a thread up on this topic

[Anonymous No.22923235]

>>22923214
Not really. That one is just shitposting.

[Anonymous No.22923269]

Oh gosh there are plenty of trust fund aesthetes who write elitist literature about the masses and their plastics and TVs while singing swan songs with their old world souls. I would characterize a lot of writing this way, Walker Percy's Moviegoer comes to mind immediately. I don't know why anyone would consciously seek to read or be the type (namely, a person who manages to notice art in the 21st century while failing to notice poverty)

[Anonymous No.22923273]

>>22923269
You moralizing leftoids are so obnoxious

[Anonymous No.22923280]

>>22923269
Thanks for the bump, I guess.

[Anonymous No.22923282]

>>22923098
I don't know of a book, but I imagine they would be united in their motives with monopoly corporations today—which hate capitalism with a passion as much as corporations can be said to hate anything—authoritarian Third World regimes, and agrarian movements. Monopoly corporations oppose capitalism because free markets are open to competition, which existing firms deplore. They seek regulation that hamstrings potential rivals and seek "protection" from foreign competitors. A hereditary aristocracy would deplore competition that threatened its hold on resources and power for much the same reason. And what do you care about the sophistry, I mean philosophy, they would cook up to obscure this incentive? Haven't you enough of modern protectionist rhetoric which also pushes emotional buttons and sways the dimwit?

[Anonymous No.22923289]

>>22923282
Dubs and Hoppe dies tonight.

[Anonymous No.22923300]

>>22923098
Marx criticized it from an aristocratic mindset. He said capitalism was le bad because it let natural inferiors usurp the born elite. Modern commies on the other hand completely accept the SJW program.

[Anonymous No.22923547]

>>22923300
Interesting. Now I remember reading something about how Marx and Engels weren't egalitarian, contrary to popular belief. Guess I'll read that then.

[Anonymous No.22923766]

>>22923098
>Non-Fiction
Doesn't Evola do that? Haven't read him, but I know he was a reactionary aristocrat.
>Fiction
Tolkien does, in a fashion. Industrialization versus nature is a common theme, and Frodo is an aristocrat among the Hobbits.

[Anonymous No.22923785]

>>22923766
>uhm industrialization is ackshually capitalism
Braindead take.

[Anonymous No.22923789]

>>22923785
Capitalism is an industrial economic paradigm.

[Anonymous No.22923893]

>>22923789
The Roman economy was already a capitalist economy long before industrialization; in medieval England wage labor and markets were widespread before the Industrial Revolution, too. The USSR didn't manage to hinder the industrialization that began in the Russian Empire for long, nor did the PRC fail to industrialize even though at great cost. This is not, like, some obscure knowledge, this is standard economic history. It's a tad ill-advised to take on faith the views of history by confused 19th-century pseuds who thought there was a "feudalism" before capitalism.

Suggested reading as a screenshot because I couldn't figure out what kept tripping up the spam filter.

[Anonymous No.22923898]

>>22923789
The Roman economy was already a capitalist economy long before industrialization; in medieval England wage labor and markets were widespread before the Industrial Revolution, too. The USSR didn't manage to hinder the industrialization that began in the Russian Empire for long, nor did the PRC fail to industrialize even though at great cost. This is not, like, some obscure knowledge, this is standard economic history. It's a tad ill-advised to take on faith the views of history by confused 19th-century pseuds who thought there was a "feudalism" before capitalism.

• Temin, P. (2017). The Roman market economy. Princeton University Press.
• Penn, S. A. C., & Dyer, C. (1990). Wages and earnings in late medieval England: Evidence from the enforcement of the labour laws. The Economic History Review, 43(3), 356. https://doi.org/10.2307/2596938
• Clark, G. Markets before economic growth: the grain market of medieval England. Cliometrica 9, 265–287 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-014-0117-7
• Жeлeзныe дopoги, пapoхoды и cтaнки: тeхничecкий пpoгpecc в Poccийcкoй импepии [Railroads, steamships and machine tools: technological progress in the Russian Empire]. https://bootsector.livejournal.com/86838.html
• Gatrell, P. (1982). Industrial expansion in Tsarist Russia, 1908-14. The Economic History Review, 35(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.2307/2595106

[Anonymous No.22924064]

>>22923898
Market economies are not necessarily capitalism. I do agree that wage labor and free markets predate the Industrial Revolution, and have even existed millennia ago, but when we talk about capitalism we are discussing an economic system that arose in the 19th century and is clearly distinct from prior economic paradigms.
>The USSR didn't manage to hinder the industrialization that began in the Russian Empire for long
I specifically said that capitalism is an industrial economic paradigm, but it is not the only one. Socialism is another (thus the thousands of pro-capitalist ideologues who fervently oppose socialism).
>It's a tad ill-advised to take on faith the views of history by confused 19th-century pseuds who thought there was a "feudalism" before capitalism.
Again, fair. Feudalism is really a political model with some economic consequences rather than an economic model.

[Anonymous No.22924096]

>>22924064
>when we talk about capitalism we are discussing an economic system that arose in the 19th century and is clearly distinct from prior economic paradigms.
Yes, that is what commies mean, but it doesn't make sense. Corporations predate the 19th century. Capital investment and speculation predates it. So what is so different about le BAD capitalism?

[Anonymous No.22924113]

>>22924064
>when we talk about capitalism we are discussing an economic system that arose in the 19th century and is clearly distinct from prior economic paradigms.
As far as I am aware, the only _economic_ system that arose in the 19th century is socialism and its close relatives. I see neither anything clearly _economically_ distinct between market economies before and after the 19th century, nor some _economic_ principles that today's very different capitalist countries—from the Republic of Chad to the US and Denmark—share other than markets and contracts and maybe a couple other pieces of social technology. People who have an issue with "capitalism" always end up pointing at non-economic issues when thoroughly questioned, often ones that originate in these people's low value to other people.

[Anonymous No.22924216]

>>22924096
>So what is so different about le BAD capitalism?
One of the big reasons is just economic thinking. Economists didn't really exist prior to the 19th century. Before that, you had political philosophers, who often made economics secondary to their political beliefs and were woefully out of touch.
The other big reason is technology. It's not surprising that socialist thought took off around 1848, when industrialization had already gone for 30 years. Populations exploded, nations rapidly urbanized, and economic output skyrocketed. Economic and political systems had to adapt to this unprecedented level of change. Because this change was driven by technology (i.e. physical capital), the present system was termed "Capitalism" by its critics.

At least one key difference is the value of physical labor, which has dropped significantly since industrialization.

>>22924113
20th/21st-century capitalism is best defined by its governing institutions, particularly central banks, and approaches to policy shaped by (post-1930s) Macroeconomic thought.
>the only _economic_ system that arose in the 19th century is socialism and its close relatives
That's fair. Capitalism was only defined in the 19th century as social consciousness about economic issues grew, but its core properties may have arisen in the 17th or 18th centuries with the rise of corporations and other institutions.
Saying that it "arose in the 19th century" may be poor language on my part, but it's still worth understanding that the post-industrial world is fundamentally different from the pre-industrial world in an economic context.

[Anonymous No.22924220]

>>22923098
The Accursed Share

[Anonymous No.22924336]

Your mind has already been destroyed if you seriously use the term "capitalism". Actual criticism of the system are specific, mentioning actual contributing problem factors like the world-destroying consequences of removing tariffs. Most retards using the word "capitalism" are sperging about how capital attracts more capital. The retards ignore that this is not specific to any system, power over the world gives you the ability to exert even more power over the world. The powerless remain powerless, because they're fucking powerless to change it. There is no fucking fix where retards suddenly become competent and able.
All of you, admitted commies or not are brainwashed faggots with nothing to say except spreading tired propaganda.

[Anonymous No.22924340]

>>22923098
Get a job, pinko

[Anonymous No.22924343]

>>22923289
Womp womp

[Anonymous No.22924494]

>>22923098
Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen.

[Anonymous No.22924502]

Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.22924514]

>>22924494
Veblen is anything but an aristocrat.

[Anonymous No.22924524]

>>22924216
NTA, but the only reason to connect these things seems to be for a political project of posing it as a totalizing problem, ie to gesture at everything and say "all of this in general is the cause of bad things" in order to then say "give me and my friends power and we will Fundamentally Change the World". At least, from the perspective of the people who majorly coined the term "capitalism" as a pejorative for the general power structure of modernity. It seems like liberals embraced the term later because it ironically has beneficial connotations to it. Communists and socialists render "capitalism" as a totalizing "logic" that is the cause of everything in modern society, which allows liberals to both wash their hands of the imputed social ills of capitalism as caused by the weather (not a new tactic of power by any means, but in modernity the results of economic policy takes on characteristics of the weather), and to claim quite a bit of glory as the ideological proponents of such an apparently successful and powerful socio-political system. So powerful that communists spend considerable time talking about it like a demon that can't be escaped, that lives in your head. Hence, the smug "capitalism is human nature" retort.

[Anonymous No.22924702]

>>22923898
>The Roman economy was already a capitalist economy long before industrialization; in medieval England wage labor and markets were widespread before the Industrial Revolution
Not real capitalism.
>economic history
lol

[Anonymous No.22924712]

>>22924220
From this move on to everything Baudrillard wrote

[Anonymous No.22924715]

>>22924702
>capitalism is what I don't like
I assure you, you wouldn't have liked to earn a living in the Roman Empire or medieval England either.

[Anonymous No.22924730]

>>22924336
>Your mind has already been destroyed if you seriously use the term "capitalism"
Alright, then just consumerism. Or industrial capitalism, so I can appease this guy as well >>22923898
We all know what I mean, and you're just being purposefully obtuse at this point. If the idea of merchants and everymen getting power via wealth is repulsive to me, that doesn't mean I'm a commie. Some of you can only think in black and white, nothing escapes your paradigm of stupidity.

[Anonymous No.22924737]

>>22924715
Yeah, good thing I would've been a noble. That's why I'm interesting in a critique from the position of the privileged class, not your "uhm actually" moments.

[Anonymous No.22924746]

>>22924737
Most upper class people of the 19th Century despised capitalism for it's materialism and it's pettiness.

[Anonymous No.22924750]

>>22924746
Exactly. Now if only there were books about this...

[Anonymous No.22924754]

>>22924750
See>>22923201

[Anonymous No.22924755]

>>22924336
is Hitler a commie?

[Anonymous No.22924761]

>>22923098
Read Marx himself, whose critiques are not “Marxist”.

[Anonymous No.22924762]

>>22924754
Where is that from?

[Anonymous No.22924770]

>>22924762
It's from the Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races by Arthur de Gobineau

[Anonymous No.22924772]

What would an aristocratic critique of capitalism even look like?
>market economy le bad because I can't participate in pointless religious wars or extract surplus value from my tenants

[Anonymous No.22924778]

>>22924772
Market economy isn't bad per se but burgeois people should know their modest place in the human hierarchy as toys of oppression to the feudal lords

[Anonymous No.22924780]

>>22924494
Tried reading that. Dude came off like a massive simp.

[Anonymous No.22924792]

>>22924746
Then—it occurs to me—a relevant comparison would be today's celebrities, such as Oprah Winfrey, and the OP might be interested in their critiques of free exchange. Some people by their feminine nature prefer illegible hierarchies of social status to the legible hierarchy of financial status. (If you aren't familiar with the concept of legibility, see James C. Scott, "Seeing Like a State.")

In the illegible hierarchy of social status, it's not clear how to gather more status, how to be "in," where one is in the hierarchy, what the balance of everyone's status account is, &c. Someone status-rich, such as Oprah Winfrey, can tell on her show to vote for a presidential candidate, and this influence won't be taxed in any way—unlike financial influence such as donations to the candidates, which would also be scrutinized in the media. Obtaining more status is almost zero-sum, the process creates many negative externalities. In comparison, financial status makes others better off in well-known ways—creating desirable products or removing economic inefficiencies and thereby making things cheaper.

The legible hierarchy of financial status is egalitarian. The financial resources of the poor are additive and greater than those of the nobility—if the poor collected $10 from each, they could outspend the few rich nobles. Social status is inegalitarian. If status-poor people pooled their social connections, they would still end up with not much.

People tend to prefer one or the other, and celebrities together with nobles and journalists are clearly on the same side of this division. (Consider how journalists would take poorly-paid jobs because journalism is something that was high-status in cities and gave them some influence.)

[Anonymous No.22924815]

>>22924792
I see these 19th Century upper class criticisms against capitalism as rather shadowing the contrast between nobility and bourgeoisie, part of the 3rd estate, together with the poors and everything else. Rousseau wrote in the 18th Century that the rich self-made burgeois 'despises the poor because he himself was poor back in the day'. It is from this lens that we have to look at the average capitalist, with all his egoism and his narrow-minded materialism that nowadays dominates everything else in Western nations, up to a few exceptions, simply for a lack of something better.
Now the nobilities didn't prefer social status to financial status simply out of a subjective preference for it, like would hypothesize someone indoctrinated into the burgeois schools of nowadays.

[Anonymous No.22924873]

>>22924815
>between nobility and bourgeoisie
Ah, so the issue is that the nobility is threatened by the chance of getting confused for someone successfully participating in free exchange—since some financial status does grant you a little social status, hence the disparaging nature of "parvenu"—but feels secure in not ever getting confused for someone who isn't as valuable a participant in free exchange. So kind of like fashion or the PMC allying with urban youths and adopting their clothes and speech habits. Makes sense.
>capitalist, with all his egoism and his narrow-minded materialism
That's just confusing—a market participant uses his exclusive and sustained access to a resource, such as his own private, non-communal violin, to fulfil his vision, such as learning to play the violin. That's a thing of beauty. It seems to me narrow-minded to try and impede that.

[Anonymous No.22924906]

>>22924873
The point isn't in impeding free markets, what to me seems questionable is why this market logic should be extended to the government and society as a whole - egoism as the highest of virtues, materialism as it's foremost dogma.

[Anonymous No.22924920]

>>22923273
He's right and you'll never be part of the elite

[Anonymous No.22924925]

>>22924772
see >>22924746

[Anonymous No.22924932]

>>22924730
>We all know what I mean
We don't and when pressed you can't articulate it. The best you can do is emotional appeals that presume I share your resentment about the fundamental nature of reality, which is not a criticism of any specific system. There's plenty to criticize about the system but you can't because you don't understand anything about anything.
>the idea of merchants and everymen getting power via wealth is repulsive to me
You don't understand anything and resent those that do, merchants add value, you do not.

[Anonymous No.22924947]

>>22924932
It's almost as if these threads are a plea to open discussion and get new reading materials from which one can base their newly informed opinions. You should know that pressuring someone to elaborate on something they clearly know nothing of but are willing to learn won't yield very interesting results.

[Anonymous No.22924949]

>>22923098
>Books that critique capitalism and consumerism
The Turner Diaries

[Anonymous No.22925017]

>>22924216
>Because this change was driven by technology (i.e. physical capital), the present system was termed "Capitalism" by its critics.
"Capital" comes from head count, as in number of cattle. What you are describing is merely a difference in degree rather than kind for what has always existed.

[Anonymous No.22925020]

>>22925017
>a difference in degree rather than kind
A sufficiently large difference in degree is a difference in kind.

[Anonymous No.22925205]

>>22924947
And the point I added to this "open discussion" is that anything using the term capitalism is already partly accepting a point of view. Real critics with actual points are specific. If we're specific we can plausibly predict effects of policy and engineer the system over time. The "capitalism" meme doesn't relate to reality, its proponents are more concerned with their own petty resentment than learning anything. You can't identify actual problems within a framework built around propaganda.
Reducing the modern system to "capitalism" implies the engine of everything is money which is painfully retarded, the propaganda wilfully ignores the actual pillars of society which lead to productive results like the idea of the body of Christ on earth as envisioned by Paul. Any replacement for these factors that are being ignored by propagandists needs symbolic, motivational elements. Infinite food tokens do not train a competent organism.
The actual fundamental problem with modernity has to do with the loss of purpose as the religious traditions collapsed as predicted by the mouse utopia experiment. In a "post-scarcity" world everything interesting decays and dies, there is no reason to be anything but an ill defined mass of flesh. Most popular premises presented by the mainstream as obvious are retarded, quite often originating from consciously manufactured propaganda.
For "some books that critique capitalism and consumerism" and actually make some sense I would recommend the Bible, which doesn't use the word or the propaganda framing I'm objecting to.

[Anonymous No.22925206]

>>22923547
Critique of the Gotha program has the anti egalitarian part iirc.

[Anonymous No.22925340]

>>22925020
I wouldn't agree with that anon that every feature of modernity has "always existed", but I don't see how what exists now represents a distinct rupture from the past. At least, in the totalizing system way of speaking of the "economy". The biggest differences between now and the past are the obviously material ones. The population has increased dramatically, the industrial mechanisms for extraction and manufacturing we use are substantially different and are changing the ecology at scales we simply couldn't achieve before. But power in human society is generally the same, insofar as the rule is that urbanized human society is stratified by rank/status and the maintenance of social order appears as a bargaining over the maintenance of social stratification.

People often impute ecological change to "capitalism" because of the "profit motive" or some disembodied concept that is imposing its tyranny over us, when really the dilemma is just the much older one of how to maintain social stratification across generations. The ruling class isn't compelled by "capital" to continue emitting record amounts of carbon, they're compelled by the same desires that have caused societies in the past to collapse under their own weight when faced with crises or competitors.

Communists wouldn't give up fossil fuels on a dime either if their domestic and international political position rested on burning them for the immediate future. At best they'd want what the liberals want, an orderly reorganization of energy and indistry that maintains their strategic position as much as possible. We still live under familiar regimes of power in that way, it's still just people jostling for position, afraid of falling and ambitiously seeking to rise. But now it's that plus engines, electricity and silicon chips. The concept of "capitalism" seems suspect because it is often deployed as the causal power here, but it's a word that was proliferated by political dissidents that wanted to express how their power would be different. It doesn't have a deeper origin or meaning, a lot of people learn the word and take for granted it's a real thing and try to figure out when it started or what it is, when the point of the word is just political agitation against liberals to accuse them of being essentially as nasty as the ancien regime. The "capitalism" stuff isn't really necessary for that, it's ideological function post-Marx is to periodicize the history of engines, electricity and silicon chips to justify "seizing" them. It's a mythic history for a path to redemption, it's just made up stuff to get people to join a political project.

[Anonymous No.22925516]

>>22924524
>the only reason to connect these things seems to be for a political project of posing it as a totalizing problem, ie to gesture at everything and say "all of this in general is the cause of bad things"
Pretty much. That's why most socialist academics worth a damn focus on specific topics related to modernity, such as the Gramscian idea of hegemony or economists looking at income inequality.
>liberals embraced the term later because it ironically has beneficial connotations to it
Pro-market ideologues have definitely shaped the conception of the term, and arguably more so than the socialists who coined it.

For what it's worth, I still think Capitalism, so long as it's understood as representing the economic aspect of modernity, is a useful term just because so many people will use it to shape their ideologies. Even if the term itself fails to hold up to scrutiny, it's still one that can support and facilitate discussion.

[Anonymous No.22925544]

>>22923098
Sade. He was actually an aristocrat and a revolutionary.

[Anonymous No.22926465]

>>22925205
While there's definitely validity in cautioning against oversimplifying issues by solely attributing them to "capitalism", completely dismissing it might overswing the pendulum. As an economic and societal system it does have notable impacts on wealth distribution, market dynamics, and individual freedoms.

[Anonymous No.22926485]

>>22924216
>At least one key difference is the value of physical labor, which has dropped significantly since industrialization.
This is a dumbass take from a dumbass commie, in todays world you can make a living moving your finger half an inch to press a button. How much of a living could a caveman eek out moving his finger half an inch to push a button? How much could an ancient times person? How much could a medieval times person? When innovation replaces the need for as much labor the value of the labor goes up to match. You could argue that capitalism needs less laborers, but this is empirically false, goes against your own lefty arguments of needing immigrants, and prosperity reduces birth rates.

[Anonymous No.22926495]

>>22925516
>socialist academics worth a damn
Haha, good one

[Anonymous No.22926576]

>>22924949
>/pol/ greentext from the 70's

[Anonymous No.22926581]

>>22923547
>how Marx and Engels weren't egalitarian
>Abolish all hecking classes!
Yes they were you stupid nigger.

[Anonymous No.22926583]

>>22926576
and that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.22926669]

>>22923300
So why the fuck would you want to be in a commune equal with people more inferior than the bourgeois??

[Anonymous No.22926911]

>>22926485
>in todays world you can make a living moving your finger half an inch to press a button
That's not "physical labor" in that it doesn't demand the exertion comparable to a day in the fields or to working a craft like blacksmithing or carpentry by hand.
The skills you are presumably paying for are their know-how and ability to time the pressing of the button, or else you would just automate the system to make that work redundant.
>When innovation replaces the need for as much labor the value of the labor goes up to match
Anon, if you hate communists so much, you should at least learn the basic principles of supply and demand. If innovation means less labor is needed, demand goes DOWN, not up.
>goes against your own lefty arguments of needing immigrants
I never argued for immigration, you strawmanning retard.

[Anonymous No.22926923]

>>22925205
>productive results like the idea of the body of Christ on earth as envisioned by Paul

Shut the fuck up you god damn idiot!

[Anonymous No.22927003]

Marxism sure is confusing.

[Anonymous No.22928182]

>>22926581
>>Abolish all hecking classes
Who are you quoting? Because it definitely isn't Marx and Engels.

[Anonymous No.22928194]

>>22924949
/Pol autist. Get back in your cavern.

[Anonymous No.22928199]

>>22926911
what

[Anonymous No.22928208]

>>22928199
huh?

[Anonymous No.22928250]

>>22925544
Why is every revolutionary always part of the ruling class?

[Anonymous No.22929523]

>>22928250
Name a few.

[Anonymous No.22929527]

>>22928194
Dumb tourist.

[Anonymous No.22929616]

>>22926911
>innovation increases production
>increased production increases wealth
>increased wealth reduces marginal utility of wealth
>reduced marginal utility of wealth increases uses for wealth
That is how it works retard, as you can clearly see, capitalism is as of yet to run out of jobs.

[Anonymous No.22930161]

>>22928182
>Implying

[Anonymous No.22930493]

>>22926465
No. You're a brainwashed retard with nothing to add except stale propaganda.

[Anonymous No.22930695]

>>22928250
They understand that they're doomed, soon to be an historical artefact and wish to save themselves by joining the revolutionary class or they could simply be sympathetic towards revolutionary ideals. It's how the various European microstates like Monaco and Andorra survived; their owners abandoned all feudal privileges and they became bourgeoisie managers of finance capital.

>>22929523
Duke of Orléans

[Anonymous No.22930730]

>>22930695
>wish to save themselves
Dont they usually fund and start these ''revolutions'' themselves as an excuses to grab power? For example the french revolution didnt it have a bunch of petty new rich nobles who were seething because they werent invited to live in versaille or some shit?

[Anonymous No.22931424]

>>22930161
>>22930493
Yeah, I'll definitely take your angsty illiterate teenager take instead of nuance.

[Anonymous No.22931439]

>>22930161
>>22930493
Yeah, I'll definitely take your angsty teenager take instead of nuance.

[Anonymous No.22931595]

>>22924761
Just reiterating the blatantly obvious answer here by suggesting Marx’s Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

[Anonymous No.22932479]

>>22929616
>reduced marginal utility of wealth increases uses for wealth
This statement is patently incorrect. Wealth being less useful does not mean there are more uses for wealth.
What you probably mean to say is that more wealth means that you're not devoting as large a portion of your wealth on meeting basic necessities and instead choose to save or spend on luxuries.
>capitalism is as of yet to run out of jobs
Then why is there unemployment?
Furthermore, economics (both capitalist and socialist) is predicated on the idea of scarcity and constraints. Resources are scarce, time is scarce, jobs are scarce. If you assume anything is infinite, then you're a bad economist.

Are you a high school student, by any chance?

[Anonymous No.22932780]

>>22931439
>Yeah,I'll definitely take your angsty teenager take instead of nuance.

[Anonymous No.22933492]

>>22932780
Hey, thanks for the bump.

[Anonymous No.22933500]

>>22932479
No, the more wealth you have the less valuable it becomes and therefore the more useable it becomes, this is the law of marginal utility. When you have 1 of something it will be devoted to the most important thing it can be devoted to, when you have 2 of something you can devote some of it to the second most important thing it will be devoted to, and because of this the value of the most important use of that something will be divided between it and the value of the second most important use of it. More wealth is more uses for wealth and therefore more opportunities ie more jobs.
>scarcity
This doesn’t mean there is not enough for everyone, otherwise you wouldn’t even exist. The air you are breathing is scarce, but we all go on breathing it.

[Anonymous No.22933983]

>>22933500
>No, the more wealth you have the less valuable it becomes and therefore the more useable it becomes, this is the law of marginal utility
You're actually retarded. The more usable something becomes, the more utility you get from it. More utility makes something more valuable. You're arguing that something depreciating in value makes it more valuable.
>When you have 1 of something it will be devoted to the most important thing it can be devoted to, when you have 2 of something you can devote some of it to the second most important thing it will be devoted to, and because of this the value of the most important use of that something will be divided between it and the value of the second most important use of it
Those are diminishing returns. At some point, you will reach 0 or even negative returns.

Please study economics if you ever go to an undergraduate institution.

[Anonymous No.22934033]

>>22923098
I made this stack

[Anonymous No.22934051]

>>22933983
>he studied economics
This is why you don’t understand economics, institutional economics gets their ideas from literal communists

[Anonymous No.22934117]

>>22934051
>He thinks John Smith and Milton Friedman are literal communists