/lit/ - Literature

>>4868203
Nothing. As I'm not a political economist I'm not obliged to respond to utter tripe in the field.

>>4868389
/thread

OP buy some ice and try again when it's been more than three days since you had your shitty topic.

>>4868203
Pretty much anyone supporting any kind of socialism get laughed out of existence, even Paul Krugman is smarter than this

>>4868813
This means he likes the book, OP. I've figured him out. He just says the opposite of what he means. Either that or he's an idiot.

>>4868813
I guess northern Europe, the majority of Europe for that matter, is getting "laughed out of existence" then despite having some of the highest standards of living in the world. Replace fascism with socialism in that sentence and it will be more accurate.

>>4868869
>I guess northern Europe, the majority of Europe for that matter, is getting "laughed out of existence" then despite having some of the highest standards of living in the world. Replace fascism with socialism in that sentence and it will be more accurate.

Northern Europe has a lot of welfare, that doesn't make them socialist.
try again

>>4868869
Highest levels standards

Norway
Australia
USA

Take away Norway's oil and it's way down. Take the yurocock out of your mouth kiddo.

>>4868813
>Pretty much anyone supporting any kind of socialism get laughed out of existence
By the bourgeois media since socialism is directly opposed to their material interest

>>4868896
I was playing off the assumption that you believe government intervention = socialism based on the way your first comment was worded. From what I understand the book proposes taxing the rich to a greater extent and that definitely isn't socialism either.

>>4868916
Democratic socialism is extremely popular amoung hipsters and journalists. Are you mentally retarded? Socialism is the ideology of hollywood actors, the epitome of the bourgeoisie .

>>4868916
>By the bourgeois media since socialism is directly opposed to their material interest
[citation needed]

>>4868917
>I was playing off the assumption that you believe government intervention = socialism based on the way your first comment was worded. From what I understand the book proposes taxing the rich to a greater extent and that definitely isn't socialism either.

If the book could be summarized in "tax the rich" it wouldn't be 700 pages.

>>4868915
>take away a country's source of income and its a shit hole
Great argument, faggot. The same can be said about the US or Australia.

>>4868916
Who the fuck is this bourgeoisie that you speak of? You really assume that there's a mythical class that owns all this wealth that they're somehow stealing from the "poor"? The intelligentsia of English speaking countries are much more inclined towards myopic Socialist and other forms of leftist sophistry. Please read some time.

>>4868916
socialism is the only way the elite stay in power, by creating false boogie-men in the principles of free trade which scare folk into believing they need the state to protect them, when in reality it is the state that gives mega-businesses the power they have.

>>4868923
Okay, then why do you think that the book proposes socialism.

>>4868930
>Okay, then why do you think that the book proposes socialism.

would you like me to read it to you?

>>4868927
How easy it is to assign a persona to the word "state", and over generalize a mass group of individuals with personal interests to abstract and equivocal terms.

>600+ pages of economic crap
lel. do you actually think people have read Das Kapital as well?

>leftists getting blown the fuck out

>>4868941
Please go back to /v/ and read Fahrenheit 451 or some shit

>>4868936
I'm going to assume you haven't read it then and this is a knee jerk reaction. Can't do story time, I have to go to work now.

>>4868951
>I'm going to assume you haven't read it then and this is a knee jerk reaction. Can't do story time, I have to go to work now.

>Capital
>how is it about socialism??

I'm going to assume you know nothing about socialism

>>4868954
Why assume things in the first place? The inherent issue with Socialism is that surrogate decision makers attempt to ascertain what is best for abstract populations, without knowing every individual case, which ends in either disaster or (in USSR's case) economic growth at the cost of human lives.

>>4868954
Not him but you're still not making any arguments.

>>4868954
I guess you haven't taken an economics class because capital is an economics term that can have nothing to do with socialism depending on its context. I'm gone for real now, this is like talking to a brick wall. You don't make any arguments.

>>4868918
>Democratic socialism is extremely popular amoung hipsters and journalists.

'democratic socialism', whatever that means, is nothing but capitalism with a human face. and no, it's not particularly popular amongst journalists, at least where I live (the UK).

>hollywood actors, the epitome of the bourgeoisie

the epitome of the bourgeoisie are CEOs and businessmen, you know, the people that actually own the means of production. hollywood actors are (to simplify) super-renumerated petit-bourgeoisie.

>>4868926
>You really assume that there's a mythical class that owns all this wealth that they're somehow stealing from the "poor"?

class is an objective fact, determined by the social relations of production. nothing mythical about it.

>The intelligentsia of English speaking countries are much more inclined towards myopic Socialist and other forms of leftist sophistry.

not really. and if they are, it's an academic pursuit.

>>4868927
socialism is the abolition of the state. the state being an organ of class rule.

Europe doesn't have any niggers. Take the niggers and deep south out of testscores and the US does good, if not better than average.

>>4868965
>I guess you haven't taken an economics class because capital is an economics term that can have nothing to do with socialism depending on its context. I'm gone for real now, this is like talking to a brick wall. You don't make any arguments.

I guess you haven't realized that Capital is the 21st Century is a reference to Marx's Capital

>>4868964
>Not him but you're still not making any arguments.

I never attempted to make any arguments

>>4868974
>I guess you haven't realized that Capital is the 21st Century is a reference to Marx's Capital

>>4868967
I was not defining class but its inhabitants. Are you truly pushing the notion of abstract antagonists who are robber barons? And yes, twenty first century Western journalism and other forms of media are nearly always pushing a leftist agenda, if you actually read publications such as the New York Times. If I was on my computer I'd pull up many blatant propensities of the American press to be liberal in design, but I'm not at my computer, so I'll just cite muckraking and its prominence as a forefront example.

>>4868977
Then stop shitposting you faggot.

>>4868967
>hollywood actors are petit-bourgeoisie

rofl

>socialism is the abolition of the state

ROFL

>>4868986
American liberal, post-modernist "socialism" =/= Marxism.

I mean they don't even recognize class struggle, the fucking point of the whole ideology.

>>4868947
thanks for proving my point.
/lit/ - talking about books you haven't even read

>>4868926
You really assume there's a mythical class that owns all this wealth that they're somehow stealing from the "poor"?

Anon hasn't been redpilled yet.

Don't you know this country is under direct control of LA LI LU LE LO. LA LI LU LE LO. LA LI LU LE LO.

>socialism

Good goy..

Most of the book is devoted to analyzing the causes and symptoms of inequality that are endemic in society. While that's an important task in its own right, what little he proposes in the way of solutions are mostly superficial tweaks (e.g. a slightly different tax code) to our existing structure of trade and governance, without upsetting said structure that (as "real" socialists might tell you) has led to such a system of inequality in the first place.

>>4868974
you are literally judging the book based on the title alone. why you would want to ensure your embarrassment persists beyond that post you made by identifying yourself with a tripcode is beyond me.

>>4869026
>you are literally judging the book based on the title alone.

this is incorrect

>>4868986
>Are you truly pushing the notion of abstract antagonists who are robber barons?

What is abstract? The antagonism between labour and capital is concrete in the production process.

>And yes, twenty first century Western journalism and other forms of media are nearly always pushing a leftist agenda, if you actually read publications such as the New York Times.

the new york times, cheerleader for american interventionism in ukraine, is pushing a leftist agenda. right. here's an article for you: http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/the_myth_of_the_new_york_times_in_documentary_form_20110706

>The motion picture’s focus on Carr and the media desk, one of the smaller and less important departments in the paper, means that the most important sections in The New York Times are ignored, including Foreign, National and Business. The Business section, which never appears in the film, is one of the largest in the nation. Its editors and reporters, however, completely missed the looming financial meltdown. If the paper’s reporters had spent time in poor neighborhoods where subprime mortgages were being peddled to people who could never repay them, they would have understood and been able to explain to readers the tottering financial system. But poor people rarely get a voice in the Times. Instead, the paper’s business reporters busied themselves with interviews with the elite and powerful on Wall Street or the latest financial “news,” much of it manufactured by public relations firms. The Times’ obsession with access has blinded many at the paper to the dark machinations of the corporate state. And the paper, as advertising revenue has plummeted, has become ever more craven in its efforts to placate the wealthy elites their corporate advertisers seek to reach. The lifestyle sections of the paper are rife with stories about fancy restaurants in New York, summer happenings in the Hamptons, designer wardrobes, expensive cars, exotic vacations and exclusive private schools that are accessible to only a tiny percentage of rich Americans. The headline in Sunday’s Real Estate section is typical: “It’s July. Do You Know Where Your Beach House Is?”

>>4868203
Is the book worth a read

>>4869033
>n-n-nuh-uh!

>>4869019
/pol/ pls.

>>4869019

>>4869036
Yes, in my opinion, for the reasons listed here >>4869026

People who assume it advocates "socialism" are idiots.

>>4869000
marxist is a generic term for "leftist", didn't you know?

>>4869054
for people like breivik, I suppose

>mfw reading the 1-star reviews of this book on Amazon

>>4868896
Northern Europe is about as socialist as this book: i.e. it isn't

>>4868813
What do you mean "even" Paul Krugman? I don't think that's a way to speak about someone with a nobel prize in Economics. You're talking about him as if he's a total loony.

>>4869076
the nobel prize is a joke

>>4869071
It's not socialist, it's social democrat. France refers to that as the "third way" (not to be confused with Nazi Germany's third way).

>>4868980
Piketty has stated in interviews he hasn't read Marx.

>>4869076
Paul "Spendaholic" Krugman is dribble

>>4869054
No, marxist is a generic term for people who have read and agree with Marx's writings.

>>4869069
Basically the same thing a third of the world agrees with, that a small few hold all the cards to every ones future, and economic prosperity. But, there is the other majority of folks who work hard, and even when they've been knocked down a few times they get back up and try again, or try something different, maybe something new. I am one of the majority who works hard and doesn't want a hand out. I want some filthy rich man or women to write me a check, because I worked for him or her.

>>4869082
Plus he uses a completely different definition of capital, for starters

>>4869086
that's the joke

>>4868974
But the author has never read Marx, he's a liberal economist ala Keynes or Friedman

interesting fact : most of thomas piketty's detractor know way less math than he does.

What exactly is he trying to say that we wouldn't already know? Fuck, even pic related is right on the money: Nobody ever got rich working for someone else. The rich are rich because they don't spend money on useless shit and make investments.

interesting fact : most of thomas piketty's detractors know way less math than he does.

>>4869081
Social democrats used to have actual socialist ambitions via democratic means (hence the name). You can't even call them that these days.

Rule of thumb: if the word welfare is mentioned, it's capitalism.

>>4869115
marxism is devoid of math, models, or any semblance to rill economics though so what do you expect?

>>4869114
>What exactly is he trying to say that we wouldn't already know?

>The central thesis of the book is that inequality is not an accident, but rather a feature of capitalism, and can only be reversed through state intervention.[3] The book thus argues that unless capitalism is reformed, the very democratic order will be threatened.[3]

>>4868203
Marxism rebranded. That's what I think of it.

>>4869114
His point, extremely simplified, is that the rich today are rich through inheritance.

Surely the only way for true laissez faire capitalism to provide equal opportunity would be a 100% inheritance tax, to be distributed equally to people at birth. Which is obviously a ridiculous system, and capitalists ought to stop saying their system provides equality of opportunity.

>>4869127
>Democracy

As in, paying and voting on people to make important decisions with "YOUR" best interests in mind?
Who's "your"? Based de Tocqueville was right: Tyranny of the Majority. People are too stupid to rule themselves.
Also, the US is not a democracy. It's a federal constitutional republic, according to the CIA World Factbook.

GTFO statist scum.

>>4869120
>Rule of thumb: if the word welfare is mentioned, it's capitalism.
I don't want to sound bad, but what makes you think that? Isn't the welfare state often accused of being socialist?

>>4869145
>Also, the US is not a democracy.
In theory, it is. Even with counterveiling opwers, it's theoretically accepted that popular sovereignity is the only source of power in the US.

I agree with Tocqueville though. I guess that's why a Republic needs to be run by a meritocratic upper class that takes the interests of the entire people at heart. I'm partial to the Grande Ëcole system in France (on paper, at least), where the elite are specifically educated to become the future leaders of the country and their entire university education is adapted for that specific purpose.

>>4869145
We should go back to property requirements for voting like in the beginning of the US and in Ancient Greece. No more stupid decisions by "the masses", for one thing.

>>4869161
>We should go back to property requirements for voting like in the beginning of the US and in Ancient Greece

rofl

>>4869160
>I guess that's why a Republic needs to be run by a meritocratic upper class that takes the interests of the entire people at heart
There will never be a group of people like this, though. They call Plato an idealist for a reason.
>>4869161
How retarded are you?

>>4869147
Yes. The problem is the multiplicity of meanings of the word socialist.

Between c.1900-1917 the socialist movement split into two camps: reformist and revolutionary. The revolutionary socialists stuck to the old Marxist definition where socialism and capitalism are diametrically opposed historical epochs. The evolutionary (reformist) socialists believed that reforms could be introduced piecemeal under capitalism and there would a gradual transition to socialism. Eventually after WW2 they abandoned this completely and their goal was a capitalism with 'socialistic elements' (like the welfare state). But their evolution had gone in a completely different direction to the Marxist revolutionary tradition so there was no real common language of what socialism actually meaned .

>>4869147
A socialist wouldn't call it welfare, moderate capitalists realise you need at least some sort of safety net, even if it's only for the poorest in society, extremist capitalists call this socialism because they neither know nor care what socialism actually is and see the welfare state as an obstacle to be shouted into submission

>>4869160
> where the elite are specifically educated to become the future leaders of the country and their entire university education is adapted for that specific purpose.

that's not the purpose of grande écoles

>a meritocratic upper class

the grandes écoles system doesn't work that way anymore. this is why Bourdieu came up with the concept of social capital

>>4869147
Because the notion itself can only exist within capitalism.

>>4869172
Agree with this on Plato, the only practical way to decide who belongs in an aristocracy (in the original sense) is who has the greatest wealth, which is no guarantee of merit

>>4869190
>the grandes écoles system doesn't work that way anymore
Oh? But it used to work like that, right? If not, then I have no idea how I got that idea. I do remember hearing something about almost all French politicians having attended a Grande École.

>this is why Bourdieu came up with the concept of social capital
Can you tell me a bit more about it? I'm sorry, but I'm not too familliar with Bourdieu.

Q: Is this book worth reading?

I know that's a lot like OP's question but I'm cutting straight to the point here. Whether it's 'good' or 'bad' isn't that important.

And this could be said for all books posted here you heathens

>durrr rich have too much money we need more taxes on them :^)

such insight

>>4869318
it is definitely worth reading, and I don't agree with the book at all

>>4869330

Thanks anon (that is your name, right?)

Normaliens Normaliens Normaliens Normaliens

>>4869482
what point are you trying to make

>>4869555
>what point are you trying to make
If you know the word you should know my point.

>>4869232
>Can you tell me a bit more about it? I'm sorry, but I'm not too familliar with Bourdieu.
Not him, but that anon was basically pointing out that meritocracy would necessarily lead to oppression through the accumulation of social capital, where privileged people in society have access to rule. Education plays a big part to "filter" people out. It's really isn't that hard.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm

>>4869318
I'm pretty sure it did some shit to the thick-headed Thatcherite scholars, so yes.

>>4869085
I'm pretty sure it's drivel, retard.

>>4870760
>meritocracy would necessarily lead to oppression through the accumulation of social capital, where privileged people in society have access to rule
Bourdieu's categories of "social capital" are in no way capital in the sense that Marx means by "capital." Social capital does not circulate by M—C…P…C'—M'

>>4868813
Haven't read it but from the reviews and summaries I've read, Piketty admonishes the lazy rhetoric of campus socialism. It seems he has a fairly grounded view of economics which is what distinguishes him from his contemporaries.