/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11206054]

Can you point me to any lit discussing the problems of capitalism without falling into the socialist meme?
I'm a libertarian so I like capitalism but I'm still concerned about some things in it - externalities, private lobbying, and the fact that no matter how well a society is set up for freedom - with time it degenerates to statism/

[Anonymous No.11206080]

>>11206054
Its time to take the red pill

[Anonymous No.11206097]

>>11206080
>without falling into the socialist meme
>suggests a national socialist

[Anonymous No.11206174]

You should read socialist lit anyway

[Anonymous No.11206262]

>>11206054
left leaning– if not explicitly leftist– lit has an abundance of material concerning negative externalities e.g. environmental waste, modern political economy e.g. private lobbying, and so on. read them for the problems described, disagree (and develop arguments against!) with the antidotes prescribed.

as for statism arising out of freedom, nozick wrote about how a minarchy arises out of a lockean state of nature. although tat may not be what you're looking for. perhaps “ the road to serfdom”?

[Anonymous No.11206276]

>>11206262
you do realize not all enviromentalists are leftist?
I care about my potential children's future not some hippie fucks legalizing AIDS

[Anonymous No.11206306]

>>11206054
You've got it backwards, capitalism is the meme

[Anonymous No.11206315]

>>11206262
>as for statism arising out of freedom, nozick wrote about how a minarchy arises out of a lockean state of nature. although tat may not be what you're looking for. perhaps “ the road to serfdom”?

Yet, this is the one I'm most interested in, I feel. I have tried the road to serfdom and dropped it very quickly, though I don't remember why - it was a long time ago. I will give it another shot.

[Anonymous No.11206339]

>>11206054
who is this insemination destination

[Anonymous No.11206365]

>>11206276
environmentalism is fundamentally incompatible with right-wing thought. No matter how you try to justify it it's a leftist position.

>>11206306
This. You'd expect with the number of NEETs or anons who despise their jobs here this would be more widely accepted.

[Anonymous No.11206392]

>>11206306
Go to sleep, Karl

>>11206339

[Anonymous No.11206398]

>>11206054
you should explicitly present what your borderline is. anyone is easy to say someone just criticizing capitalism as "socialist meme", and there's nothing we can do about because you can be one of it.

[Anonymous No.11206433]

>>11206398
Fair.
I draw the line with people who want to replace capitalism, not because they don't have good arguments but because I have to sift through pages of hysteria about how evil capitalists are and how they hate poor people and want to destroy the planet before I get to the actual arguments.
Instead, I'm looking for people who are pro-capitalism but realize that it's by no means a perfect system and discuss some of the problems with it.

[Anonymous No.11206470]

>>11206392
who is this moneyshot honeypot

[Anonymous No.11206480]

>>11206470
Thanks for bumping the thread, friend

[Anonymous No.11206487]

Can I offer a new challenge real quick to whoever wants to take me up on it? I am a lib/right-leaning who believes capitalism is not only the most functional, but also the most moral system we have devised so far. Please convince me otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11206508]

>>11206480
Who is this cock sneeze shot sleeve

[Anonymous No.11206538]

>>11206508
Someone that I used to know.

[Anonymous No.11206630]

>>11206054
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
In it the author disects mixed economy statism aka crony capitialism. Also addresses the most common and popular fallacies said about Capitalism by pseud academics.

[Anonymous No.11206684]

>>11206054
Economic Issues Today: Alternative Approaches,, Eighth Edition by Carson, Thomas, and Hecht.

[Anonymous No.11207127]

>>11206487
What makes a system that lets chance decide about the wellbeing of individuals "moral"? Also where is the "morality" in letting a minority have a complete majority on resources to a point where they can and are encouraged to let the majority of people suffer despite having plenty of means to prevent that?

[Anonymous No.11207136]

The JONS magazine.

[Anonymous No.11207231]

>>11206054

Read the Big Questions. The Money Question (Frederick Soddy, CH Douglas, Arthur Kitson), The Trade Question (Henry Carey, Friedrich List), The Land Question (Henry George). Then learned how that all came to be (Karl Polanyi). Congrats, you're no longer Capitalist. You can now read Marx without remorse.

[Anonymous No.11207311]

>>11206054
Capitalism is bad not because making money is bad, but because the capitalist worldview necessitates finding ever more draconian or pointless ways to make this money.

It's like why Facebook literally designs it's apps to be as addictive as possible. That is not providing a "genuine human good" - that is exploiting evolutionary psychology to get people hooked in middle state of endless dissatisfaction. It's not conductive to true happiness or growth as a human being, but it is good for profits, and as a result our society will continue to reward such practices.

[Anonymous No.11207331]

>>11207127
Most capitalist countries today have an upwards mobility rate of above 15%, so chance is not even the biggest factor, and by far.

The majority of people are not suffering, but are just fine. You could make the case the ones on the bottom are suffering, but could that not be fixed through either charities or some other means to lift these people into a higher class?

[Anonymous No.11207463]

>>11207331

That's some sweet ideology you've got there.

[Anonymous No.11207483]

>>11206054
>the fact that no matter how well a society is set up for freedom - with time it degenerates to statism/
"But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.
Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible."

[Anonymous No.11207490]

>>11206630
>mixed economy statism aka crony capitialism

[Anonymous No.11207537]

>>11207331
Not sure if I misunderstood something but if just 15% have any chance to advance, how isn't it the biggest factor, even when ignoring chance needed to advance in the first place?

Though I was more focused on the negative outcomes either way, being born across the wrong border, from poor parents or even better, a single mother, while having the wrong skin colour would be enough to stun the upwards potential of most individuals, before adding stuff like being born a retard or just with a tricky disease. Before even adding fun like injuries in countries without free healthcare. While charities can soften the blow of shitty chance, the voluntary nature of these, puts the most needy people under complete dependance on the wills of others, without any checks to ensure their well being.

>The majority of people are not suffering
A good chunk of the world population lives at 2-3 bucks a day, and outside of some rare abominations like NK or Venezuela, most countries are capitalist to a varying degree.

Even if we focus on the developed countries, most have around 15-20% living in relative poverty which is survivable but not quite "fine". Now I am not advocating for socialism/communism but purely from "moral" point of view, they seem a lot better by focusing on improving conditions for the people worse of, at least on the conceptual level.

>some other means to lift these people into a higher class?
Well, the Scandinavian model and the likes would go against your lib/right leaning ideas.

>>11207483
>where there is no unemployment
Can we stop this meme already? Automation is bound to make most people unemployed, which is an opportunity for more personal liberty, if done right.

[Anonymous No.11208111]

>>11207537
>Not sure if I misunderstood something but if just 15% have any chance to advance, how isn't it the biggest factor, even when ignoring chance needed to advance in the first place?

Upwards mobility is the percent chance of someone from the bottom 20% reaching the top 20%. Effectively, if how, where, or to whom you were born had no effect, there would be perfect mobility, or 20%, meaning the class you were born under was entirely insignificant. 15-18% is, from what I have seen, an exceptional number, as there are heritable circumstances, as well as people that don't know how to handle money not being able to teach their kids how to handle money. In the developed world, upwards mobility is exceptional, meaning that the circumstances you were born under have very little effect for the vast majority of people.

>While charities can soften the blow of shitty chance, the voluntary nature of these, puts the most needy people under complete dependance on the wills of others, without any checks to ensure their well being.

If you failed to take care of yourself, you are already at the mercy of others so to say. The only difference is you are either looking to the government or to charity. People make out the government argument as if it is for people who fall through the cracks of charity, but Independent charities do a fine job. People VERY rarely starve in developed countries, even those that are in poverty and not on aid.

>A good chunk of the world population lives at 2-3 bucks a day,

Not necessarily suffering. In those areas, this is enough to cover living expenses.

>Even if we focus on the developed countries, most have around 15-20% living in relative poverty which is survivable but not quite "fine".

I have lived in this bracket, and it really is fine. You have a shit car, but it is not suffering. That word is just too strong.

>Well, the Scandinavian model and the likes would go against your lib/right leaning ideas.

True, but there are other methods. The town where I grew up had an organization that would help out the people of the community that they knew needed help, by fixing up their yard, or renovating their house or whatever. This did not technically have potential to move their class, but it could improve quality of life.

[Anonymous No.11208125]

>>11206433
why dont you try reading the fucking book

[Anonymous No.11208734]

Foucault negri adorno

[Anonymous No.11208765]

>>11207537
>Well, the Scandinavian model and the likes would go against your lib/right leaning ideas.
the Scandinavian nations are very much capitalistic societies,

t. Norwegian.

[Anonymous No.11208829]

>>11206054
>libertarian
Literally a fake ideology cultivated primarily to promote tax cuts for big business and corrupt subversion of politics (in its modern form, at least). Shit like 'free market' never has and never will exist. It's a fiction with no basis. Economics is contextual and nuanced, not about vague universals and self-contradicting ideals. Also, there is no such thing as libertarian in most countries, it's considered the same as contemporary liberal. Capitalism is a lot worse than simple economic issues, it destroys all cultures and languages, optimising them for vapid consumerism.

[Anonymous No.11209010]

>>11208765
Oh definitely, just with healthy amounts of social programs and laws to ensure that even the unlucky ones have a decent life. They are a great example how to create a relatively free market without going all "TAXATION IS THEFT" or how to create a relatively fair society without going all "SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION."

[Anonymous No.11209037]

>>11206054
>Can you point me to any lit discussing the problems of capitalism without falling into the socialist meme?
>I'm a libertarian so I like capitalism but I'm still concerned about some things in it - externalities, private lobbying, and the fact that no matter how well a society is set up for freedom - with time it degenerates to statism/
So you're a liberal then

[Anonymous No.11209369]

>>11209037
>so you're a liberal then

I believe that taxation is theft

[Anonymous No.11209396]

>>11206054
watch the money masters. Read some economy books sections talking about fractionary reserve, dumping, suply and demand manipulation, especulation, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act

[Anonymous No.11209420]

>>11209369
lmao

[Anonymous No.11209422]

>The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business and Jewish influences within it.[227] Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism and he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[228] He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld.[229] He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable due to it having an egotistic nature and he preferred a state-directed economy

>Hitler said: "It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will bow down before a higher god. Many things owe their existence solely to the longing for money and wealth, but there is very little among them whose non-existence would leave humanity any the poorer".[234] Hitler told one party leader in 1934: "The economic system of our day is the creation of the Jews".[235] In a discussion with Mussolini, Hitler said that "[c]apitalism had run its course".[228] In another conversation, Hitler stated that business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them".[236] Hitler was personally disgusted with the ruling bourgeois elites of Germany that he obscenely referred to as a "cowardly shits"

[Anonymous No.11209474]

>>11208111
>I have lived in this bracket, and it really is fine. You have a shit car, but it is not suffering.
THIS. Non-capitalists forget that the natural state of the world is man living in the forest hunting and gathering. The modern definition of poverty is unfotunately relative, instead of absolute. Homelessness and subsistance farming is true poverty. Wanting truffle fries instead of government cheese is leftist poverty.

[Anonymous No.11209505]

>>11208829
>vapid consumerism
>producing goods and services that people want promotes ignorance
where can I buy your psudointellectual epiphany?

seriously though, even with it's flaws, the benefits of capitalism outweigh the drawbacks by orders of magnitude

[Anonymous No.11209559]

>>11209396
>>11207231

These. I would add Erik Reinert and Richard Werner to the list

[Anonymous No.11209575]

>>11209474
>THIS. Non-capitalists forget that the natural state of the world is man living in the forest hunting and gathering. The modern definition of poverty is unfotunately relative, instead of absolute. Homelessness and subsistance farming is true poverty. Wanting truffle fries instead of government cheese is leftist poverty.


What are you talking about moron, there is a whole ideology that wants to be cavemen

[Anonymous No.11209596]

>>11206054
So are you asking for Feudalist recommendations?

[Anonymous No.11209623]

>>11209474

Will you be satisfied once American working conditions reach parity with those of, say, Indonesia? Then will people have a right to demand a better life from their masters?

[Anonymous No.11209631]

>>11209369
So you're Juche?

[Anonymous No.11209658]

>>11208111
>meaning that the circumstances you were born under have very little effect for the vast majority of people
I am still not quite sure whether I am too sleepy or whether you're getting stuff wrong. 20% would be far from perfect mobility, 80% of poorpags would still be stuck in the same class with no chances to improve their position.

>The only difference is you are either looking to the government or to charity.
A pretty significant difference, since one is ensured by law and the other purely by good will of the people with zero certainty. If contribution to the welfare net by paying taxes shouldn't be ensured legally, why not do the same approach with all crime and just hope the majority of people won't commit any?

>Independent charities do a fine job.
Given the massive need around the world, it's hard to tell. Though obviously also hard to predict how it would change if people had more money to go around.

>Not necessarily suffering.
Not having the basics like running water, sanitation and the likes, sounds like suffering to me. Do people have to literally starve to quality for suffering?

>I have lived in this bracket, and it really is fine.
As did I back in mother Russia after the fall of gommunism, and I managed fine too, but I am an ascetic fuck who was/is good with money and generally resourceful. Many people aren't, and that before we add the clusterfuck of kids and whatever else can go wrong. Are they responsible for their crappy situation? Well, it's all philosophical but it wouldn't be too costly to vastly improve their position, and probably a net benefit for society in the end.

>This did not technically have potential to move their class, but it could improve quality of life.
It's one of these chance-y things. Your town might had that organisation, another couple criminals running around making things even worse.

[Anonymous No.11209659]

>>11206365

>environmentalism is fundamentally incompatible with right-wing thought. No matter how you try to justify it it's a leftist position.

Are you completely insane?

The NSDAP were totally environmentally-minded, and in sensible practical ways.

(inb4 "b-but Nazis were Socialist", they were right-wing, don't waste everyone's time.)

Serious environmentalism can only arise from Burke's idea that society is a partnership among the living, the unborn, and the dead. Nothing more right-wing than that. Left-wing environmentalism is worthless.

[Anonymous No.11209678]

>>11206538
Hmmm, yepp, I want to breed with her.

[Anonymous No.11209717]

>>11206054
>Can you point me to any lit discussing the problems of capitalism without falling into the socialist meme?

Those were ever pinpointed as problems only in regards to socialism/leftist thought.

But if you're a libertarian why does capitalism having problems bother you?

[Anonymous No.11209773]

>>11209717
>But if you're a libertarian why does capitalism having problems bother you?
It bothers me insofar that an almost perfect system can be even better

[Anonymous No.11209791]

>>11209773

>conglomerate resource monopolies
>hierarchies
>depending on your cock being sucked perpetually only for your system to survive socially
>Only ever become sustainable for the sake of perpetuating a socio-economic system meant for the elites

The germanic migrations to the Roman Empire were a mistake

[Anonymous No.11209871]

>>11209659
Nazis were economically centrist and authoritarian. Environementalism works with that but not lolbertarianism.

[Anonymous No.11209890]

>>11209871
Don't you think that if the environment becomes a problem the free market would find a solution to it? There's no profit if everyone's dead

[Anonymous No.11209910]

>>11209890
Depends on who dies. Besides, climate change will cause quite a lot migration, which won't hurt. There isn't a huge initiative to do anything for muh free market.

[Anonymous No.11209971]

>>11209910
First line sounds a bit too cynical for me.
>>11209910
To answer your question, probably, but if we are making the environment worse, how much worse is it going to become before the general public cares enough to switch to the other wise more expensive products? Would it not be better to set some regulations, and then whatever companies can create the best products for the cheapest etc. get sold?

Suppose there is some chemical that tastes good, but makes people sick. Do you want to wait until enough people realize it makes them sick to stop buying it, until it eventually has enough power to force the company to change the recipe? Would it not be better to outlaw the chemical all together, and then let the market figure a solution?

[Anonymous No.11210070]

>>11209971
Hey, I am just a detached observer and not a big fan of the free market meme. For your chemical that makes sick example, we got the overuse of sugar or even legalised drugs either way.

And honestly, not even sure whether forcing to change the recipe/outlawing would be the right way even from a perspective skeptical to the market. Given the reality, where tons of negative substances are already perfectly allowed and that banning others only caused more harm, an educational campaign, ideally sponsored by the company sounds like a better solution. As long information isn't asymmetrical, the consumer could make a choice between enjoying the shit and their long term health.

[Anonymous No.11210106]

>>11206054
Nicolas Gomez Davila

[Anonymous No.11210107]

>>11209971
>Do you want to wait until enough people realize it makes them sick to stop buying it,
How many times are you going to buy something if it makes you sick?

[Anonymous No.11210116]

>>11210107
Once and you will likely not correlate the cause to the effect, two and it may be coincidental, so I would say three.

[Anonymous No.11210134]

>>11210116
How long do you think a producer will leave a food product on the market if consumers only buy it 2 or 3 times and never touch it again?

[Anonymous No.11210165]

>>11210134
That was my point, though. Free markets will solve the problem, but at the cost of having to first experience the problem.

[Anonymous No.11210184]

>>11206487
Read Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. Some of his arguments are pretty dated (especially with regarding ideas about population control, i.e. he talks about a need for coercion but this is before we were aware of strong links between education/industrialization and falling birth rates). But his central premise, that the optimal strategy is simply to find some unregulated commons and use it to essentially socialize your own risk/loss before somebody else does. Those who choose to play "fair" or "honorably" will obviously be crushed by these more exploitative actors as the most successful among them race to shift their coats onto others as fast as possible. Privatization means that "Conscientiousness" is self eliminating in this system, actors are only incentivized to expand, at others expense if at all possible.
Anyway you can find the PDF online, and it's a pretty short essay, quick read and thought provoking.

[Anonymous No.11210198]

>>11206538
Omg who cares. Tits?

[Anonymous No.11210867]

>>11209010
floor
not ceiling

[Anonymous No.11211017]

>>11209890
No because profit driven incentives are too late to the party.

Also, libertarian societies can’t compete with authoritarian ones.

[Anonymous No.11211776]

FOR FUCKS SAKE, STOP POSTING VIXENS

as the summer approaches, and the women are out in less and less clothing, i'm starting to appreciate the appeal of pic related

[Anonymous No.11212790]

Off the top of my head for not-so-anti-capitalists:
>John Maynard Keynes
>Alfred Marshall
>Arthur Pigou
>Henry George
>Léon Walras

[Anonymous No.11212816]

>>11212790
Keynes has contradictions littered throughout the book.

Here's what I think about The General Theory, if you haven't read any MATHEMATICAL economists, go ahead and read it, it will get you hooked on mathematical economics. But there are numerous errors throughout the book. Keynes was a statist, and somewhat of a brainlet. For someone who was VERY smart, and also incorporated the Federal Reserve and similar government intervention into their economics, look into the theories of Irving Fisher. Very intelligent man.

I COMPLETELY AND WHOLE HEARTEDLY support those last two though. George was amazing, and Walras is a God among men.

Walras is EXXXXXTREEEEEEMELY mathematical, if you have some problems with his systems or understanding them feel free to post in /sci/

[Anonymous No.11214359]

Do all the lazy unmotivated left leaning fuckers realize that no matter the system their will be still fucked because of who they are?

[Anonymous No.11215498]

>>11214359
That's not true
Proof : all of the people who work in the public sector

[Anonymous No.11216812]

bump

[Anonymous No.11216815]

>>11206054
>I'm libertarian
stopped reading

[Anonymous No.11216938]

>>11206054
> I LIKE capitalism
> please suggest books that won't offend my sensibilities
Nigga, if ideology is about what you LIKE then why the fuck do you wanna learn anything? Just stay in your ideological ghetto jerking off to stefon molynux

[Anonymous No.11216971]

>>11206054
>he thinks he could be free outside the state
Good luck getting raped/robbed/stabbed and having no superior authority to which to appeal for protection, you absolutely spooked faggot.

[Anonymous No.11218773]

Novack

[Anonymous No.11218780]

free market with charitable culture where avarice and consumerism arent the dominant culture, is optimum.