Books for/against communism

[Anonymous No.16297425]

My friend has become really interested in socialism and communism, but he's only read points that are from one POV. This is a polarising subject, but I want to understand both pros and cons so that I can have a proper conversation with him about it. I don't have a point of view on the subject, because frankly it's just not something I've been interested in before.
What are a couple of books you would recommend both 1) for communism, and 2) against communism? What are the main salient points I should be looking for?

[Anonymous No.16297453]

Nietzsche should provide a good moral foundation for why communism and socialism are beta ideologies.

[Anonymous No.16297474]

>>16297453
You are very unintelligent
>>16297425
just buy a marx anthology to start
also if you arent stupid you will find that there are no books "against communism" that aren't laughably retarded
>frankly it's just not something I've been interested in before
You should start being interested in it considering the fact that the marxist critique concerns the most immediate and concrete conditions of everything around you

[Anonymous No.16297477]

>>16297474
He’s not interested in Marxist analysis, he just wants to know about communism.

[Anonymous No.16297478]

To understand the arguments for socialism, don't read anything. Just watch breadtubers like all the other socialists do.
To understand the arguments against socialism, just read an introductory economics textbook.

[Anonymous No.16297485]

>>16297477
Is this supposed to be a joke?

[Anonymous No.16297508]

Here I’ll save you the precious time 1/3

[Anonymous No.16297517]

>>16297508
2/3

[Anonymous No.16297523]

>>16297517
3/3

[Anonymous No.16297543]

>>16297425
To get a solid foundation from Marx:
>The 1844 manuscripts
>The German ideology (just the first part)
>The Communist Manifesto
>Critique of the Gotha Program
>Capital Vol.1
I'd say either read them online or pick up Capital Vol1 and the Marx-Engels reader by Tucker.
Some classic critiques i can think of:
>Statism and Anarchy - Bakunin
>The Road to Serfdom - Hayek
>Karl Marx and the Close of His System - Böhm-Bawerk
>Open Society and Its Enemies (Vol 2.) - Popper
>Political Parties - Michels (kinda)
However you can find plenty of indirect critiques from most political and economic philosophers post-marx.
But to be completely honest, your friend probably hasn't read anything by Marx other than maybe the communist manifesto and couldn't engage in any serious discussion about it. So you probably shouldn't bother reading books and instead just watch a youtube video or something. Twentieth-century ideologies tend to draw pseuds like honey, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.16297545]

>>16297523
This speaks more to how flighty and ephemeral most people are in their convictions more than whatever the image is trying to imply at face value.

[Anonymous No.16297549]

>>16297543
>Popper
Lame-o. Read Genealogy of Morals if you want a solid foundation in anti-communist mindset.

[Anonymous No.16297550]

>>16297545
Get fucking real loser

[Anonymous No.16297557]

>>16297550
Compelling argument.

[Anonymous No.16297564]

>>16297557
Marxism has no argument. Its just MUH CLASS STRUGGLE and MUH OPRESSION. There is no deeper meaning. Also, it creates a paradox by claiming to reject morality, yet its communist proponents consider the revolution as a moral obligation.

[Anonymous No.16297571]

>>16297564
holy shit lol
are you 13?

[Anonymous No.16297572]

>>16297564
ok retard

[Anonymous No.16297577]

>>16297557
The war was won already in the real world longggg ago so you’re shit for brains arguments are easily retorted by memes

[Anonymous No.16297578]

>>16297474
dogmatist

[Anonymous No.16297586]

>>16297571
>>16297572
Explain how revolution is simultaneously a meaningless flux in power through history, and also a moral obligation for the good of mankind.

[Anonymous No.16297588]

>>16297564
>Also, it creates a paradox by claiming to reject morality, yet its communist proponents consider the revolution as a moral obligation.
Marx didn't reject morality. That comes with the postmoderns.

[Anonymous No.16297599]

>>16297577
What argument to you think I've made?

[Anonymous No.16297603]

>>16297586
it is a moral obligation because the dominant mode of life is inhuman, aesthetically vulgar, miserable
> Explain how revolution is simultaneously a meaningless flux in power through history
it isn’t, it is part of the unfolding of humanity’s oldest projects

[Anonymous No.16297606]

>>16297586
I don't see any reason why I should let you draw me into an argument about something I don't actually give a shit about.

[Anonymous No.16297608]

>>16297588
>>16297557
>>16297474
The fucking stateeeeee of neo marxists.
You know something... Marx wasn’t so bad and made some valid points (but was wrong on what to do about them) It’s Marxists that are obnoxious little critters. Marx, like Jesus, would roll in his grave if he saw what was done in his name.

“Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste."
(“What is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist.”)
- Karl Marx, 1882

[Anonymous No.16297613]

>>16297608
Oh, I'm a Marxist now. I wasn't aware.

[Anonymous No.16297617]

>>16297608
Just clarifying an anon who made an ignorant claim. I'm not a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.16297618]

>>16297603
>inhuman, aesthetically vulgar, miserable
Blame enlightenment principals, not class society.

[Anonymous No.16297622]

>>16297618
you should try reading the german ideology

[Anonymous No.16297626]

>>16297617
Some people get a little too confident in their pattern recognition. To most people who have politics, anyone who says something they disagree with is automagically the straw man of the enemy 'ism, and they're constantly looking to burn it down. Nuance is truly dead.