/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16474427]

So....is this a good place to start to strike up intellectual debates with commies on internet?

[Anonymous No.16474435]

Read the physiocrats and mercantilists too

[Anonymous No.16474439]

This is the essential commie busting starter pack

[Anonymous No.16474443]

>>16474435
Recommend some of the mercantilists? I've had a hard time finding some of their primary work and have had to rely on economic histories.

[Anonymous No.16474449]

>>16474439
>>16474435
Very nice.

[Sage No.16474459]

>>16474427

[Anonymous No.16474684]

Am I missing anything if I read an abridged version of The Wealth of Nations?

[Anonymous No.16474689]

faggot

[Anonymous No.16474698]

>>16474427
You'll be learning an outdated system soon outgrown by those who used it to argue against a system that, itself, has grown and evolved over time. It's a good place to "start" but don't just read it and think "now I can crush marxists with FACTS and LOGIC"

[Anonymous No.16475470]

>>16474684
summarycucks gtfo

[Anonymous No.16475483]

>>16474439
Bootlicking 101.

[Anonymous No.16475514]

>>16474427
>intellectual debates
>with commies
You say this as if there can be a debate. Commies start from a position of having accepted specific ideas and interpretations that make it legitimately pointless to talk to them because any other kind of thinking does not compute for them.

You should read Poverty and Progress by Henry George though. It shows you the direction of early progressive thought before the Marxists took over. George annoys Marxist drones because they have no way of dealing with him through their normal NPC subroutines besides googling that Marx said George didn't go far enough.

[Anonymous No.16475540]

>>16475514
Honestly, this. It takes a lot to get me riled up, and I have a Marxist drone coworker that consistently manages to do so because he refuses to frame things outside of an overly simplistic conception of class struggle. Its like talking to a walking Soviet propaganda machine.

[Anonymous No.16475562]

>>16475540
Ask him if he thinks justice or something more universal is important.
If he does then show how worker justice is particularly limited to workers. You can say how worker class won't exist after ai. You can repeat this on other things but he'll probably say that some classes include others particularly if you bring up "justice for anti marxists". You have two things, one more fundamental to the other, which you must refer to in order to test them. Just get enough axioms.

[Anonymous No.16475645]

>>16474427
If you actually read it you'll find yourself agreeing with them more than you'd expect. That Smith was a hardcore proponent laissez-faire economics is largely a myth.

[Anonymous No.16475653]

>>16474427
Read this and then Debt by David Graeber. Once you’ve integrated both you’ll be able to btfo both the left and the right with your fractal localist powers.

[Anonymous No.16475660]

>>16475653
>Read this and then Debt by David Graeber.
Jesus Christ what a huge leap downwards

[Anonymous No.16475682]

>>16475470
about 80% of the ones I've read or tried to read are dogshit that completely fail to be what the title suggests or are basically glorified pamphlets for the author's career or retarded pet ideas.

[Anonymous No.16475687]

>>16475660
The book does a great job of demonstrating that the myth of barter is incorrect. Economic activity didn’t evolve from barter in the way Smith assumes but mostly came by way of top-down (state and military) imposition.

[Anonymous No.16475688]

Adam Smith stole all his ideas from Quesnay and Turgot

[Anonymous No.16475691]

>starting with a book written by an insane man who was homosexual is good

[Anonymous No.16475697]

>>16474427
I would recommend Debt: the first 1000 years by David Graeber. He's a shlib but its a great debunking of neo-classical Smith economics. If you want something that critiques Marxism, take a look at "The Close of his System" by Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk.

[Anonymous No.16475702]

>>16475688
*newton

[Anonymous No.16475846]

>>16474427
>read wealth of nations
>realize Smith talks about the labour theory of value

[Anonymous No.16476439]

>>16474439
Complete with a shout out from number 1 schizo Rand. Holy fuck watching her be interviewed then realising people actually listen to anything she has to say is nuts. Her whole twisted logic to the point she was telling one of her friends that logic said he would have to cheat on his wife with her what a stupid bitch.

[Anonymous No.16476459]

>>16475846
>>16474427
This.

When you actually read Marx you'll find out they agree on a lot. Wait til you read Smith's position on concentrations of power and stagnant capital.

[Anonymous No.16476547]

>>16474427
No. If you want to say his value theory and class view of history is wrong. Marginalism attacks his value theory and nationalism or other factors can be said to be more important than class.

>>16475697
>If you want something that critiques Marxism, take a look at "The Close of his System" by Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk.
More of a weird misunderstanding, his entire attack on Marx is claiming Marx thought value and price has to equal at a micro level every cycle when Marx was dealing with macro aggregates.

[Anonymous No.16476617]

>>16474435
>>16474443
Fucking mercantilism? Unironically end your lives.
>>16474459
>>16474684
>>16474698
>>16475470
Holy fuck you retards can't be serious.
>>16475514
True, fucking hate debating them.
>>16474427
Primary texts for economics are completely fucking retarded, don't get them period. Read a textbook or take a cheap online class.
>>16475540
>>16475562
Pretend I'm replying to everyone else in this thread because I'm not (You)ing everyone in this thread. Fuck everyone of you, you guys are the most useless faggots in existence.

[Anonymous No.16476631]

Reactionaries lie about Adam Smith a lot, he had more in common with Marx than you'd think and was very very very critical of division of labor as well as wage labor

[Anonymous No.16476637]

Problem, Marx?

[Anonymous No.16476641]

Man was not the right wing free market capitalist icon that some make him out to be today.

What would Adam Smith say if he were alive to see our economic systems today?

[Anonymous No.16476642]

Smith is worth reading, but is not the best starting point.