/lit/ - Literature

Not as heavy on the theory but it's worth adding to your list. Benjamin Roth does a good job of describing the economics/political response before, during, and after the great depression

Also this guy

>>15736807
thanks anon
>>15736808
no this is PURE IDEOLOGY

>>15736777
Dispels a lot of the neoliberal myths.

read capital dipshit

>>15736808
what is it with pseuds and commie shit? Like how many times do you retards need to be murdered by your own ideology to realize its time to stop peddling this?

>>15736838
It's the fate of communist to starve...

>>15736858
But the pseuds aren't the ones starving to death, because then it would at least make sense for them to think they'd be lucky enough to survive. The ones starving to death are merely collateral. The academics that propel and lead the early movements are virtually always hunted down by one of their comrades. Kim Il Sung killed the entire council that began the revolution with him. Trotsky couldn't even hide out in South America. Mao culled the academics. This shit has been repeated virtually every time and yet somehow commies have worse pattern recognition than the average 4 year old.
>inb4 that wasn't real communism

>>15736895
It wasn't real communism in the same way capitalism isn't real capitalism when it doesn't work.

>>15736777
>but it's to simple
“People who pride themselves on their "complexity" and deride others for being "simplistic" should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth.”
― Thomas Sowell

>>15736920
Did Sowell really write that? I guess I was right all along to avoid him.

>>15736838
>>15736835
>>15736823
>>15736858
>>15736895
>>15736904
>>15736929
I do not believe ideology, or the ideas expressed in propaganda, are true knowledge in the scientific sense. sun tzu describes that without knowledge of the enemy, one is destined to defeat (at the hands of the enemy) and without knowledge of one's self, phyrric victory (at the hands of one's self).
the purpose of propaganda is for it's respective ideology to succeed. it expresses only the strengths of it's own ideology and only the weakness of opposing ideologies. you might as well be reading advertisements and considering that legitimate education. if you rely on propaganda to learn, if you allow ideology to use you like a tool, you will lose. Only if you cultivate reasoning, and use your knowledge as a tool, can you prosper.
many "communists" like yourself reject classical theories of economy and ideas of efficiency. economics is not a matter of capital, anon. it is a matter of the distribution of scarce resources. sowell described this well, and if he had not spent the next chapters one-directionally bashing political policy I wouldn't be here. for any society to succeed, whether they are capitalist, communist, socialist, or whatever else, they must ultimately abide by the same economic principles. your preference towards any one ideology is merely a weakness in logic and not a strength or meaningful characteristic.
>>15736920
good quote, anon!
however i was seeking something more tangible instead. I would consider that more basic.

>>15736920
Peak nigger mindset.

>>15736938

>>15736938
you can't leave ideology

Oh boy. Another Cold War kids thread. Watch as they dredge up old CIA stats on the Soviets and equate socialism with authoritarianism
Thanks a lot tankies, ya big doofs.

>>15736816
>this is PURE IDEOLOGY
No, but it isn’t completely what OP asked for

>>15736938
You're right. Marx never read Smith or Ricardo. How stupid of him, you have to read the classics!

>>15737014
people who live in communes and support communism are communists, but people who live in capitalist countries and post communist stuff on the internet are just "communists". hence the quotes. I don't have a problem with actual communists
>>15736995
no, but you can use ideas for your own gain rather than using yourself for ideological gain

>>15737014
unironically though marx had absolutely 0 knowledge of actual economics. He wrote conjectures based on a horrendous misunderstanding of Hegel in which he completely misses the point, trying to understand Hegel through a non metaphysical lens which isn't possible. Almost as if he was another /lit/ pseud.

>>15737050
>ideas for your own gain
what is my own gain? this is all ideology. you sound very naive.

>>15737075
to ensure the success of your personal finance, business, commune, local jurisdiction, community, country, etc.

>>15736777
Unironically the Wealth of Nations
Anyone saying anything else is a smoothbrain

>>15736777
Capital

>>15737102
>commune
need I remind lit every real attempt at a commune by right wingers has been obliterated by glowniggers because showing people you don't need the government might make the people in charge lose power. Ideology means nothing with the power to live it.

>>15736777
Do you really think the simplified mathematics thst is economics can model the human fiscal behavior? I have a great doubt.

>>15736938
Sorry anon but you need to realise that there is literally no such thing as an impartial objective book. It is a fine ideal but there are always going to be imperfections in any actual text by any real person. There are always heuristics and assumptions the author uses that other people are going to object to.

This is one of the main textbooks used for undergraduate economics courses now.

>>15736777

Das Kapital

The important thing to understand about economics is that math is in fact a language, a means of communication, and not a pure metaphysics or whatever people think. Even the most mathematized economics is still a communication of an ideology, and the terseness of the symbols is not an indicator of the "objectivity" of the ideology.

"Why Socialism" by Albert Einstein

>>15736777
Economics is a spook.

>opinionated
I don't think a single critic of Sowell has actually read his books
>too abstract
go figure economics is abstract, rationalistic nonsense
>mathematical models and practical applications of economics (and economic policy)?
reading the horoscope is a better use of your time

>>15736777
Piketty is honestly easy to read for when you want to delve into Macroeconomics. Great to understand the role of big money in today's economy.

>>15736777

>>15736777
You really want to read an actual economics textbook

>>15736938
Why did you call me a communist for sharing Ha-Joon Chang's book? He's not a communist. He's a specialist in development economics and looks at how economic policies play out in the real world rather than relying on heavily on models and theory. If you want to learn about economics you should check out his work.

>>15736777
It's not a good introduction since it doesn't even attempt to introduce any real core insights from marginalism or methodological issues and just propagandizes free trade being good and such based on poor anecdotes. Notice the only people who cite Sowell are conservatives.

http://digamo.free.fr/ecophilo.pdf

>>15736938
>many "communists" like yourself reject classical theories of economy and ideas of efficiency. economics is not a matter of capital, anon. it is a matter of the distribution of scarce resources. sowell described this well, and if he had not spent the next chapters one-directionally bashing political policy I wouldn't be here. for any society to succeed, whether they are capitalist, communist, socialist, or whatever else, they must ultimately abide by the same economic principles. your preference towards any one ideology is merely a weakness in logic and not a strength or meaningful characteristic.
If you read any of the classical economists you'd see they were actually explicitly interested in the process of capital accumulation. Remember Smith called his book "the wealth of nations" not "consumer preference maximization through trade". If you weren't blind you'd be able to clearly see that intangible claims on wealth (stocks, bonds, "currency", etc) is what actually commandeers all those "scarce resources" and conglomerates who can shut down production and idle resources can get actually claim more profit by creating and managing scarcity. Even if there's no real scarcity you have to invent it (intellectual property) to maintain profit. The wealthy are only interested in maintaining their differential power not "efficiency" in any common sense manner. There's no trans-socio-political economic principles since the game and goals are different.

Mises? I heard he's the ultimate capitalism red pill.

don't bother with general "introductory" texts, the field is too big. Pick something specialized and look to other resources when you run into concepts you don't understand. That said this book is easy enough to read.

>>15736838
what is it with pseuds and capitalist shit? Like how many times do you retards need to be murdered by your own ideology to realize its time to stop peddling this?