/lit/ - Literature

I think it's good at critiquing capitalism, but not great coming up with a solution.

Why not both?

PRETTY SOPHISTICATED MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

UNFORTUNATELY COOPTED BY EVERY DESTRUCTIVE SHITTY REGRESSIVE SOCIAL MOVEMENT IN THE LAST 150 YEARS

>>3575258
On a similar note (not OP), and I know this is probably an inflammatory topic on here, but what about Objectivism/the ideals put forth in Ayn Rand's books? I try to look up what I can, but I have an amazingly obnoxious, sleazy friend who won't shut the fuck up about how it's the only smart philosophy. I just want either some concrete support, or solid arguments against it.

yeah it's p cool
wish the anarchists and the marxists didn't split though

>>3575265
>>3575278
This.
/thread

KARL POPPER AND STUFF

>>3575292
ask him if having a baby counts as charity since it freeloads off of the host mother for months

>>3575292
>obnoxious, sleazy friend
objectivism is bad enough but why are you friends with them anyway?

It has merit AND is a failed system.

It's a major body of works that deserves to be read even if it's clearly dated. You need to know it to understand how its ideas helped shaping the modern world.

Same reason any atheist with a brain would read the bible.

>>3575292
There is much better than Ayn Rand if you want Libertarian-ish works.

Bastiat.
Friedman.
Hoppe.
Hayek.
Ludwig von Mises.

Beware, apart from Bastiat they tend to be rather technical. You should have a solid grasp of basic economics before reading them.

>>3575292
Objectivism is only an -ism because of Rand's bold arrogance. It doesn't deserve to be mentioned near something as vast, complex and influential as marxism.

>>3575329
More a friend of a friend.

>>3575347
And sure, but I need some actual material to work with when getting preached at.

Marx is a fucking awful economist, Communism is an Utopian system that just doesn't work with human nature.

As a political theorist, Marx is unrivaled. His long view of history with an emphasis on conflicts between economies, rather than sovereign nations, is probably the most objective and insightful way to examine history. The way economies dictate the world we live in, and through conflict, sometimes end our lives

>>3575348
>friedman
Love that guy.
Not only in his philosophy/politics, but he just seems like a pretty chill dude.

>>3575435
Coherent systems in general don't work with human nature.

>>3575634
PS Nothing seems to really work with human nature

>>3575348
Semi-related, but does anyone have any suggestions for a good primer on economics?

Marxism economics is outdated, but it's substance is still pretty fucking cool. Also, super critique on capitalism.

However, many a people have developed newer ideas on leftist economics. No, not the venus project.

However, a lot of the debate in terms of Marxism is revolutionary methods. Don't go there unless you're ready to hate the world and everyone else.

Oh, socialist btw.

>>3575853
Economic Democracy is a nice term to start with. Work with that.

>>3575435
>Human nature

>>3575860
>marxism
>economics
and ayn rands a philosopher, right?

>>3575873
Ayn Rand is a fun sci-fi writer.

it's a social critique. for its time it was genius

>>3575435
>Marx is a fucking awful economist, Communism is an Utopian system that just doesn't work with human nature.

Confirmed for never reading Marx.

Marxism is largely a study on how economic relations result in how people act socially.

Greed as the defining attribute of human psyche is not human nature, but one facilitated by a system which holds greed on a pedestal for everyone to aspire too. If you change the economic relations, over a long period of time, the social relations change as well.

Many of the attacks on Marx as well are very poorly thought through. In fact, people like Mises, Rothbard and Friedman are so incorrect in their analysis of Marx that I doubt they ever actually gave any serious study into the theory. When they get basic ideas incorrect (Value = Price, when Marx actually said that demand and supply rarely meet and that prices and values are rarely the same. shows they have no clue what they are talking about) and they have to strawman Marx down into "Objective value theory" which ignores pretty much all of Marxist argument, I can not take them seriously.

Marx didn't predict everything accurately, for example, the exportation of extreme exploitation to the third world, but Marxist analysis is still very, very relevant for the modern world, now more than ever that both Keynesian and Austerian economics are going down the drain.

>>3575860
>However, a lot of the debate in terms of Marxism is revolutionary methods.

There should be zero debate. It is proven that through violent struggle only serious change can come through society.

>>3575909
Agreed. But I meant in what ways to organize this e.g. Maoist Red Army or general people's army. I'm a people's army kind of guy.

And just for fun, R.I.P. Paris Commune. It is its birthday.

Marxism is not a system.

Read Richard Pipes' book "Communism"

>>3575922
>Pipes

At least recommend Kołakowski.

>>3575921
That should be acknowledged while reading.

Marxism is:
>Shitting on Capitalism
>Basis of almost all revolutionary theory (conflict in all subservient relationships, Capitalism has new conflict of Bourgeoisie v. Prole)
>The theory that once we achieve socialism, we must continue into communism


That's it. That's all it is.

See, I can be a help socialist.

>>3575927
Pipes' volume is easy and short. I'm not sure there's a better introduction.

>>3575873
>>3575893
You talkin' shit about my waifu?

So what does everyone think of Zizek?
Are his views relevant and well thought through or should he be considered a "Jester" and "a Troll" like the mainstream media claims he is.

>>3576000
If he and Hitchens are twins then he's the one with an actual grasp of philosophy but the topics he covers are often stupidly elementary and the name dropping seems to be nothing more than name dropping. He can be fun but I don't look to him for insight very often.

>>3576023
>That feel when Hitchens was an imperialist cunt.

One a Trotskyist, always a Trotskyist I guess.

I will never understand why Trotskyists have this undying support for American imperialism.

>>3576045
Shrug. Zizek also says things the dogmatic leftist academics don't agree with either.

Two of a kind.

>>3576058
Zizek also keeps a picture of Stalin in his wallet and said Hitler wasn't vicious enough.

He trolls the mainstream media at every opportunity. Hitchens was an imperialist cunt.

Fuck Marx, fuck Communism, fuck Socialism, etc. The United States doin big thangs and they been taking a shit on the world for 200 years now. These niggas gotta get with it or kill themselves cuz shit ain't finna change. We bout it bout it out here in the states

It's not a system, it's a series of socioeconomic inquiries into the functioning of capitalism and how it drives history.

It contains much merit. Now go and read Das Kapital.

>>3576071
>Hitler wasn't vicious enough

It sounds provocative but it amounts to the trivial claim that Hitler was a reactionary.