/lit/ - Literature

>capitalist literature
>good
nah, bro, a good example of what capitalism does for literature is the Twilight series i mean by the market standards those books are brilliant!

Hayek's "road to serfdom". burke, I suppose.

Adam Smith and David Ricardo -- then read Marx's Capital and come to the realization that if Smith and Ricardo would have just lived through industrial capitalism, then they too would have been Marxists

>>1166895
(as i'm sure you know) smith and ricardo make an argument for liberal economics that's not really that strong anymore. smith might be worth reading, ricardo certainly isn't, and there are better people to make the case (with which I disagree) for liberal economics.

>>1166889
This, Wealth of Nations

Seconding Hayek.
Also:
Free to Choose: A personal statement and Capitalism and Freedom by Friedman.
Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty
Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies
Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Lester's Escape From Leviathan: Liberty, Welfare, and Anarchy Reconciled

Have you read this?

>>1166914
I personally don't like any literature distributed by cults of personality.

>>1166926
I don't know, THE BIBLE IS PRETTY GOOD

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH FUUUUUCK YEAH I JUST SAID IT. FUCK YOU ALL I JUST FUCKING DID THAT. OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. FUCK YOU ALL I'M OUT. FUCK THE HATERS. LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATER BIIIIIIIIIIIIITCHES AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

>>1166932

OP here. What the fuck is the point of this post?

Everyone else has been a tremendous help, however, and I thank you.

>>1166914

I haven't, but I'm trying to avoid Ayn Rand(hence "inb4 "Atlas Shrugged").

>>1166932
>what

I suggest any mainstream history book (european authors preferable, cant trust those biblebelt inbreeders). Supremacy of capitalism is self-evident and will emerge sooner or later into the book.

>>1166932

>>1167565
I second this. The moral implications of capitalism aside, it arises from the merchant-class that is inevitably created when civilizations meet and trade burgeons.

Hayek and Friedman

>>1167565
He's not asking to be convinced that capitalism is superior, he's asking for books that explain the ideas behind capitalism.

>>1167604
I'm not that poster, but I'd still recommend some sort of historical basis. You have to understand the situation in which ideas arise before you can understand their nature.

Apart from that, I'd second Adam Smith and, as much as it pains me to type it, Ayn Rand isn't completely useless when it comes to understanding some of the thinking that underpins capitalist thought, even if she is a tad exaggerated.

>>1167604
I think you misunderstood my post. The supremacy (as in beating other (non)market systems) of capitalism is EMERGENT which is proven by history of mankind.

On the other hand capitalism is emergent itself, from the state of anarchy (anarcho-capitalism, the "political system" of early homo-sapiens) as 1167601 wrote:
>>1167601
>it arises from the merchant-class that is inevitably created when civilizations meet and trade burgeons.
I would just say it arises as a natural, occam-razor-esque system as a result of intrinsic human needs.
Following history step by step (espiecially of western societies) is the best way to understanding capitalism.

>>1167621

>>1167601 here. I agree, the most primitive economy is essentially one of completely unregulated capitalism.

What I was referring to when I cited the merchant-class was more referring to how we see capitalism today; as almost a political entity.

Fuck all that 20th century bull.
Read J.S. Mill - "On Liberty" instead.

Anything by Rothbard. Non-fic, but I'm sure there are SOME people over 18 on this board.

Animal Farm; it's not capitalist, but is rather Anti-communist.

Road to Serfdom by Hayek, or other stuff by him etc.

How many Chicago School of Economics graduates does it take to change a light bulb?

None. If it needed changing, the market would have taken care of it.

>>1167734

It's actually quite pro-communism. It's just anti-stalinism.

>>1167758
>animal farm
>pro-communism
my god.....just...leave, please

>>1167769
>Doesn't understand communism

>>1167772
>doesn't understand why every kid in America is forced to read this book in high school

>>1167758
derp

>>1167769

1. Orwell himself was a socialist
2. In the story, everything was going awesome until Napoleon(Stalin) started being a dick.

It was a "Don't let communism get fucked up like this again" story, not a "Free market capitalism is the solution!" story.

>>1167787
Just because it isn't pro-capitalism doesn't mean it's pro-communist. Walk into a lecture hall and spout your opinion of this book, I dare you.

>>1167796
At any decent University it would probably spark an interesting debate.

>>1167787
I consider myself a communist, but animal farm was not pro communist, neither was it really against it, it was about power.

>>1167796
i did but it was a medicine lecture and they operated on me

>>1167799
They gave you a brain?

>>1167601
>>1167621
>no understanding of the formation of capitalism

capitalism is not related to merchants, but rather to the rise of wage labor in factories, beginning in england and holland

OP:: to understand the formation of capitalism (and a more accurate portrayal of how it works than idealists like rothbard, and those of the neoclassical school), you should check out Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance -- by Douglass North

It's rather dense and quite complex but very rewarding

it's probably the best representation of the "new institutionalist" school of economics and won him a nobel prize in econ

>>1167801
your brain >:D

>>1167804
Joke's on you, I've never had one.

>>1167807
my life is a lie, i dont even exist...

>>1167803

>>1167601 Here.

I was about to debate you, but then I realised just how full of shit I actually am because Free Market =! Capitalism. That's what I get for being this tired and deciding 4chan was a good idea.

>>1167812
it's ok drawn man

>>1167812
>Free Market =! Capitalism

I don't see how you could have either without the other...

>>1167815
Perhaps, but they're not the exact same concept. That's the error I made.

>>1167796

It was anti-totalitarian. This does not mean anti-socialist or anti-communist.

>>1167815
free market is a different assumption than capitalism
you can have a free market (no gov't tariff) without capitalism mode of production
to be considered capitalism, labor must be a commodity: ie, you get paid a wage for your labor
previous forms of production were not structured this way, they were tributary (you gave certain % of crops to your local lord) or kinship-based (crops shared among family structure)

got it?

>>1167818

Your definition of capitalism is...original. And useless. First of all whether you receive a wage for it, family solidarity and cooperation, or the right to farm your feudal lord's land makes no difference whatsoever. Shit is exchanged for labor. Even if I were to concede your point that there are other "modes of production", capitalism is not simply a "mode of production". Capitalism does require free markets.

>>1167826
.... original? no, it's the accepted academic definition. read some economic history, and try to understand the radical difference: in one, the peasant farmer is tied to the land in a relatively permanent social position, in capitalism there is no similar concept in that there is a great level of social mobility

capitalism does not require free markets. protip: most markets today still aren't free

>>1167832
Anon, you are correct in a sense that capitalism does not require a radically free market (e.g. China a sort of post-democracy capitalist state e.g. the real future of capitalism) it does require a market, though. Not just any kind of market--but the sort of advanced market for financial products that is present in the U.S. Capitalism has also created a new economic class (well, in reality you could argue that capitalism has metastasized class ex post facto--on the one hand making a partial truth of the idea that capitalism destroys class but materially creating a diffuse proletarianism within society)

>most markets today still aren't free

No shit, Sherlock. Did you discover that all by yourself?

>>1167832

Before you were saying that what made the difference was the "mode of production". Now you're saying it's social mobility. Which is it? And how can any of those definitions make any sense? People got wages in the USSR. Was the USSR's economy capitalist?

>>1167847
it is all about the mode of production
looking at a precapitalist tributary society: lords generally control land, peasants farm the land, live on the land, give a certain amount of the crops they farm to the lord: peasant gives tribute to his lord in a proscribed social fashion - he is not free to move and sell his labor elsewhere
capitalism requires the formation of a labor market, where people are free to sell their labor anywhere -- in that sense, it requires the labor market to be free, so you are correct in a sense when you say free markets are necessary. But there is overlap in that "free markets" can mean a number of different things including international trade.

Likewise, communism is a post-capitalist mode of production. Marx himself said that capitalism is a necessary first step before communism. The question about communism is over who owns the means of production (ie the factories that employ the wage labor). In the sense that communist Russia did not have a free labor market (people could not freely sell their labor) it was not a capitalist mode of production

I'm hoping you can understand my point -- if not, I'd be happy to elaborate

>>1167859
Not who you were posting to, but you do understand that you are talking about an abstraction, don't you? This idea of a social mobility is abstraction.

>>1167861
I'm not sure what you mean by abstraction. I understand that this social mobility might not be necessarily a good thing for everyone - the amount of suffering during the peasant enclosures is case in point
but abstraction? It is a very real thing, in that precapitalist societies have established classes with specific societal/economic roles with very little movement in between

>>1167863
capitalism does the same in a de facto way, except they introduced inner-class competition (well it was already around, but they introduced it to the lower classes) and yet, this is just competing to survive--I don't know--in reality living in a capitalist society is shit if you were born into poverty.

>>1167879
in a sense I agree with you... peasants were at least guaranteed a minimum level of subsistence by their lords...

I think, though, a lot of the problem is in this sort of unfettered capitalism that lacks a social safety net (which was the problem in a lot of the capitalist transformations - immense suffering), but I would argue that the social safety net is a modernized version of this minimum subsistence guarantee, rationalized in the form of a government

>>1167889
I also consider this--the peasent class did not work the entire year--in fact there were months of inactivity during the winter. Capitalism's biggest disadvantage to most people is that it requires, it urges us to work as much as possible to the extent that people today aren't capable of feeling anything for themselves but a kind of utility. I think the social safety net of feudal and capitalist society were both methods of control and hence, why politically, i'm more of a libertine--i don't want to liberate humanity or save the world but i will escape the confines by any means necessary.

>>1167890
hmmm.... that's quite interesting
I hadn't thought about that, but you're quite right

>>1167891
Yeah, i'm over-simplifying a bit and I suppose one can choose not to work and deal with the consequences of homelessness or somehow live by social services--these are fine choices, but i was arguing more against the ideals of capitalism, and the idea that to be ultimately effective within a capitalist setting you must work constantly--I honestly don't understand why we could not have a 4 hour work day by now, and I think it is just a matter of social stagnation or something--either that or an intentional effort to better control the population. I honestly don't know--but I'm not really that advanced politically--I have read a lot of political theory and have gone through changes but I think in the end my first notions were the most true--that is I don't want to be in the ''rat race'' I don't want what hard-work has to offer but I also do not want to be homeless or a ward of the state (if I can help it) and I would like a viable third option (which I am looking for).

>>1167897
halving the workday nationally would probably have a gigantic negative consequence...
on personal level, I agree though
I suppose, since the way most modern societies are structured, your only real choice is to do some kind of work that gets contracted out (computer stuff, translation, even maintenance stuff), set your own hours, and just be pleased with the results

quite honestly, I've seriously considered doing online translations for companies, moving to somewhere with low cost of living but nice life (argentina, wherever), and just enjoying life

>>1167903
Yeah that does sound nice, and it is pretty close to what I am considering, as well.

>>1167897

Ah, my specialty. The answer is relatively simple, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. It's all about mating. Wealth is a great signal for the fitness of a potential mate, and offers great security for making children.

It is a pretty well-established empirical fact (in the economics literature it is known as the Easterlin "paradox") that (above a certain basic subsistence level) humans do not care about absolute levels of income or wealth, but about relative levels of income and wealth. To have much is irrelevant; to have more than your neighbor is the source of happiness.

This, of course, is why competition in capitalist markets is so successful: nobody is ever content, saying "yeah, that's probably enough". People want to have more than other people.

>>1167918
Well, why this may hold up in empirical studies or economics modelling, I am clearly an aberration and really could not be asked to compete for relative prosperity--that bit about noone ever being content is spot on and i think it is why so many people are really intolerable to be around.