/lit/ - Literature

>>12371836
>Crude and repulsive as Marx's and Engels' racial remarks to each other often were, there is no need to make them still worse by putting them in the same category as twentieth-century racism that has justified genocide. Marx's much criticized essay, 'On the Jewish Question,' for example, contains clear statements of his distaste for what he considered to be Jewish cultural or social traits, but in the end it was a defense of Jews' right to full political equality, written as a reply to a contemporary who had claimed that Jews should be required to give up their religion before receiving equal civil status. Marx hoped that the characteristics he disliked in Jews would fade away with the disappearance of capitalism, thus leading to 'abolishing the essence of Jewry'—but hardly in the sense of Hitler and the Nazis. Similarly, despite his anti-Negro stereotypes, during the American Civil War he conducted propaganda for the North and for the emancipation of slaves. Perhaps more indicative, he agreed to the marriage of his eldest daughter to a man known to have some Negro ancestry, after discouraging other suitors.
-- The Thomas Sowell Reader, 2011, pp. 185-186.

>>9394821
Well he hates the idea of being worshipped.

It might also be because the American right, that is, the classic, conservative voting population, just does not have an intellectual tradition which it follows in the first place (that's not to say aren't the unwitting exponents of certain ideas created by intellectuals). And it doesn't help that they may find Sowell disconcertingly secular.

We could imagine Sowell appealing to the more intellectual (if I may use that word), internet-based, alt-right youngins if he wrote about issues that they care about (but he does not).

He's not left with much of an audience besides a handful of some minarchist, right-libertarians.

STOP TRYING TO PLUNDER FROM PEOPLE IN ORDER TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH

>>8407707
You must literally be mentally retarded. All your useless math has time and time again been proven wrong. I remember watching Fox Business News back in like 06 when Friedmanite "economic experts" were laughing at the notion of a housing bubble as being impossible because of the magic of their math which had finally eliminated all risk.
How do I know the Marxian value analysis is legitimate? I have my methods of transforming prices from the national accounts into values and looking at the structure of the health of the national economy in value terms. You can uncover profit crises emerging long before they show up in monetary terms on any corporate balance sheet. Along with this I can preform a simple schizoanalysis of the bourgeois financial press to uncover unconscious affirmations of the Marxian conception of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall which keeps popping up just in queer phraseology forms.
The reality is debts cannot be serviced if the underlying value structure of the global economy doesn't permit it. What you end up with is a massive build up of trillions of dollars of private and public debts which are mere fictitious paper claims on wealth which don't exist and if they are attempted to be transformed into physical wealth you get disastrous inflation and a breakdown of the system.
If you've been following the financial press recently you'll notice they have been calling for a return to the Nazi finance minister Hjalmar Schacht... the Financial Times, The Economist, etc, etc... have all been attempting to deploy this revival of Schachtian economics: http://voxeu.org/article/macroeconomics-germany-forgotten-lesson-hjalmar-schacht
Hitler simply eliminated the Jews (who were largely petty-bourgeois) on the behalf of reviving the German petty-bourgeois's profit rate which was in a state of crises and resorted to forced labour at the so called "death camps", which were really work camps, as an answer to this debt servicing issue. The financial press is really calling for a revival of forced labour camps when they call for a return of Schachtian economics... this is what Marx would call a modern method of Primitive Accumulation. A global political economy much worse than Stalinism or Hitlerianism might very well be slowly emerging but the addition of modern technological capability of governments will make this global totalitarianism under American financial interests much worse than any 20th century totalitarianism.
Realistically you have two options today... either you have a debt write down (highly unlikely today) or you have a "Schachtian" answer to servicing the trillions of dollars of global debt.
Your completely ahistoric math models tell you absolutely noting about real political economy.

>>8372343
>Rousseau
>2016

Read Joseph Schumpeter's "History of Economic Analysis", which is absolutely crucial for really understanding economics. If you google it you will find the PDF

Also give this a look: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/

>>7418369
Don't listen to this guy, Sowell is a meme. Also Neoclassical and Austrian economics are radically at odds.

Some mushy feely moralist critic of capitalism is pointless. What's the implications of the natural tendencies of rapid development of the productive forces. If everything keeps going like they are where will we be 100 years from now when the value of an individuals labour is progressively worth less and technology fulfils more and more of our needs, and who will own it.

mark twain was a statist who worshipped the german statist postal service as a false god
please mark read economics 101; rohrpost ain't no god twainy

>>7283183
>discrediting the most based intellectual alive

>>7206549
As opposed to what?

>>7185567
Intellectuals were always a meme.

>>6895981
>No Thomas Sowell please

Oh come on.

>>6895111
Who /sowell/ here?

>>6873934
Stormfront pls

>>6860022
This