/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3125787]

So, /lit/, I've been a classical liberal for a long time and I've recently started reading a greater amount of political philosophy, and have warmed up to the ideology of anarchy. I'd like to learn more about it, so can anyone recommend me some good anarchist literature?

[Anonymous No.3125792]

Look for essays by Emma Goldman.

[VurtKonnegut No.3125794]

Civil Disobedience by Thoreau

[Anonymous No.3125797]

Proudhon, Kropotkin, Marx (even though he wasn't a anarchist his critiques of capitalism/liberalism are very useful)

[Anonymous No.3125804]

Read some Stirner, yo.

[Anonymous No.3125823]

Read Stirner and then read "The German Ideology" by Marx & Engels for a proper critique of Stirner.

[Anonymous No.3125831]

Pretty much anything by Murray Rothbard, father of Anarcho-Capitalism. For a New Liberty is a great introduction to the practicalities of an Anarcho-Capitalist society, and Ethics of Liberty lays out the theory of property rights in an anarcho-capitalist society. From there, Hans-Herman Hoppe is probably the best. Check out A Theory of Socialism of Capitalism, and the Economics and Ethics of Private Property.

[Anonymous No.3125832]

>>3125787
>classical liberal

[Anonymous No.3125833]

>be 2012
>not Anarcho-Capitalist

[Anonymous No.3125834]

>>3125831

Holy shit don't pay attention to this guy, unless you want to turn around and head straight back to boring liberalism

[Anonymous No.3125839]

anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron

[jeffy poo !otjpgkbCgY No.3125846]

>>3125832
>not being classical liberal or any variant of it including modern libertarianism or anarcho capitalism
>>3125839
>>lel capitalism is supposed to have government guys. what, free market? i thought thats what we had. wheres my free ipad :(((

[Anonymous No.3125847]

>>3125787
"Chomsky on Anarchism" by Noam Chomsky and "An Introduction to Political Philosophy" by J. Wolff. Also, the most read book in undergraduate political philosophy courses, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by R. Nozick. These are very good books on political philosophy and are rigorous enough for an advanced reader to enjoy. They do not pander to the "popular" demographic of philosophy, they are aimed at academia.

[Anonymous No.3125854]

>>3125797
OP is classical liberal, not socialist

[Anonymous No.3125861]

>>3125846
It's almost like you believe this tripe, but surely that can't be it. Surely.

[Anonymous No.3125863]

>>3125854

He asked for anarchist thought, and the best way to understand anarchy is to read anti-capitalist thought.

The recent bourgeois appropriation of the word "anarchy" (see so-called "anarcho-capitalism") is a complete perversion of anarchist thought.

[Anonymous No.3125869]

>>3125797
OP here. I've been intending to read Marx for a long time, and I'm embarrassed to say I haven't. What would you recommend I start with?

[Anonymous No.3125872]

I recommend you look into Georgism too.

It is not anarchist, but it is a variant of Classical-Liberalism that takes many Socialist premises into account and tries to find a middle way between Liberalism and Proudhon's Mutualism. There are some Georgist Anarchists however.

Georgism basically holds that although man has a right to private property over what he creates, land and natural resources cannot be privately owned with out leading to exploitation and authority. Natural resources are not created by any one individual (so no one has a "claim" on them, they belong equally to everyone), and private ownership of land logically leads to domination of some men over others (if all land were privately owned, the landless would be slaves to the landlords).

George then proposed that men should not have property over land, but be allowed to maintain "possession" of land by compensating the community by paying back ground-rent in the form of a land value tax.

The difference between George and most Anarchists is that George argued not all private property was bad, only private property in land. He argued private ownership of Capital was not a problem, since theoretically everyone could become an owner of Capital if they had access to the value of land/resources.

>>3125863

Depends on which variant of "anarcho-capitalism" we are talking about. While Hoppeans are most definitely not anarchists, Left-Rothbardians and Agorists do fit in the old tradition of Individualist-Anarchism.

[Franz !!8ZELb56UWUx No.3125879]

This is the book that got me into economics, and my subsequent love of Caplan made me a more enthusiastic about classical liberalism (as well as an avid reader of his posts on EconLog).

In addition, I'd also point you to the blog CafeHayek - especially the posts by Don Boudreaux (who, unlike Hayek himself, has an incredible, economic, and humorous way with words).

>>3125833
I'm interested in this too, but don't really know of good books on the subject. Feel free to make recommendations.

[Anonymous No.3125881]

>>3125869
'On the Jewish Question'

[Anonymous No.3125882]

>>3125846
Anarcho-capitalism is a very modern branch of anarchism that goes against most of the tenets of the older tendencies. I would necessarily say it's an oxymoron, as the other fellow did, but it definitely runs contrary to the aims of most anarchist strains of thought. American libertarianism is straight retarded, though.

And this is coming from a voluntaryist.

[Anonymous No.3125886]

>>3125882
*"I wouldn't necessarily say," rather.

[Anonymous No.3125888]

>>3125882
What's your problem with American libertarianism?

[Anonymous No.3125891]

>>3125869

Capital Vol. 1 and David Harvey's youtube lectures to help you through the rough patches

[VurtKonnegut No.3125897]

>>3125882
Isn't Voluntaryism the quintessential form of libertarianism though? Or are you refering more to the tea party and they're ilk?

[VurtKonnegut No.3125903]

>>3125897
*their

[Anonymous No.3125913]

OP i recommend you look into Mutualism first, since it is a form of Anarchism that is very close to Classical-Liberalism and is radically in favor of free-markets.

Start with Kevin Carson's "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy", it's the best introduction to modern Mutualism, and Kevin Carson is a great guy.

If you want to look into "Anarcho-Capitalism", begin with David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom", it is a strictly economic proposal for it that is the best introduction. But when it comes to philosophy, stay the fuck away from Hoppe and his followers, they are not "anarchists" in the slightest. For An-Cap philosophy that is genuinely anarchist look into Left-Rothbardians like Roderick T. Long and Samuel Edward Konkin III.


>>3125882

>American libertarianism is straight retarded, though.

The vulgar Libertarians who parrot conservative bullshit are retarded alright.

But there are many legit Classical-Liberals who know their shit in the Libertarian movement.

[Anonymous No.3125916]

>>3125913

stop recommending liberalism to a guy who just said he's interested in anarchist thought. jesus christ.

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.3125917]

Dude, i'm an anarchist and i know A LOT about this, well not everything because anarchism is really big but i can obviously guide you through the strange world of anarchism.

FIRST! There's a big difference between anarchism and classical liberalism or marxism. I'm not talking about the obvious social and economic differences, i'm just saying something more basic: Anarchism doesn't have a real big saint-father-philosopher, like Marx or Smith. Damn, anarchism is a vague concept for a lot of ideas and philosophies, it's so big and complex that even after so many years i still don't know all the kinds it has.

The division that some people do it's between a social anarchism and a individualist anarchism. But it's not an extreme difference. Proudhon and Godwin are the usual proto-social anarchists, Bakunin and Kropotkin are well-known social anarchists (the first is a collectivist, and the second an anarcho-communist). Stirner it's the definitive individualist IMO.


Seriously, read Wikipedia, it's useful to at least learn all those names, differences and influences. Watch this to know a bit more about how anarchism is doing today, it's just 12 mins long https://vimeo.com/52026245

pic related, insurrectionary anarchism it's a popular branch of today.

[Anonymous No.3125923]

>>3125916

But Mutualism is not Liberalism, it is one of the most important theories in Anarchism, the system proposed by Proudhon himself. It's a good starting point to a Liberal because there is some common ground between both.

Mutualism is the original form of Anarchism, before all other factions (Communism, Collectivism, Individualism, Egoism, etc) were formed too.

[Anonymous No.3125929]

>>3125888
I hate the fact that a term created for anarchistic communists has been co-opted by a right-wing groups in the US, and I hate the positions of many of those that profess to be "libertarians." They tend to be either faux-conservatives or they scream HURR FUCKING STATISTS like the retards on /pol/ when they themselves are statists.

>>3125897
It's libertarian in the classical sense of the word, i.e., anarchistic. It is often considered "libertarian" in the modern sense because it was first propounded heavily by an American and because it doesn't have a specific economic agenda. American libertarians do not believe that every action should be voluntary, as they believe in the existence of a state, however minarchistic they may claim it is.

>>3125913
I have no problem with classical liberals, in terms of ideological consistency, but I do disagree with them.

[Anonymous No.3125931]

>>3125923

im especially talking about the ancap stuff.

[VurtKonnegut No.3125935]

http://c4ss.org/

Center for a Stateless Society

[Anonymous No.3125937]

>>3125931

In that case, although debates regarding whether it is anarchist or not are problematic as fuck, an-cap is different from standard liberalism and should be studied by someone who is looking into anarchism (even if he doubts it is anarchist). Specially the Left-Rothbardians, who are themselves closer to old school Individualist-Anarchism than to Liberalism.

I argued he should avoid Hoppeans precisely so he would avoid running into an-cap stuff that isn't actually anarchist at all.

[Anonymous No.3125949]

>>3125937

if you read Marx its pretty obvious why capitalism will never be compatible with anarchism. an-cap is basically just liberalism which is unaware of itself.

[Anonymous No.3125953]

>>3125949
Marx: the most powerful opponent of statism without knowing it.

[Anonymous No.3125955]

Rudolf Rocker's 'Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice' is a pretty good primer on that particular current of anarchism (which had been successfully implemented for a short time in Spain). I'd keep away from "anarcho-capitalism" (that is, if you want to make a serious study of anarchism proper).

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.3125965]

>>3125937
Don't believe what is this guy is saying OP.

Anarchocapitalism it's a bubble philosophy that nobody adheres to IRL. Damn, it's so closed in itself that only americans have problems with them.

Thanks jebus that in the rest of the world nobody knows who they are. They're not even anarchists.

[Anonymous No.3125973]

>>3125949

If you read both Marx and Mises you would know they have completely different definitions of "Capitalism" in the first place, and if you read Left-Rothbardians you would know it is really hard to call them "Capitalists" in the slightest.

And if you've read economic theory you would know that, although Marx is always relevant and to be taken seriously, his theories aren't exactly established truths. Modern formulations of the Law of Value are interesting, but there is still a lot of debate over them.

>>3125953

Although i don't deny he was a brilliant social thinker (despite i disagreeing with him), the man himself was openly Statist (just look at his debates with Bakunin) and a huge number of his followers have consistently been the most Statist group of people to ever exist. He hasn't exactly helped weaken Statism in the long term.

[Anonymous No.3125976]

>Overviews
Demanding the Impossible - Peter Marshall
No Gods No Masters - Daniel Guerin
Anarchism - Daniel Guerin
Anarchism - George Woodcock

>Anarchist authors
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Max Stirner, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Errico Malatesta, Gustave Landauer, Voline, Rudolf Rocker, Emile Armand, Murray Bookchin, John Zerzan, Herbert Marcuse, Noam Chomsky, Situationist International, CrimethInc
Bonus: Zhuangzi, Diogenes of Sinope, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy, various libertarian marxists/communists

>Websites
theanarchistlibrary.org
libcom.org
crimethinc.com
www.akpress.org
littleblackcart.com
www.haymarketbooks.org
semiotexte.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/

[Anonymous No.3125986]

>>3125965

I challenge you to read the New Libertarian Manifesto by Samuel Edward Konkin and tell me what's anti-anarchist about it. SEK was a radical Rothbardian, yet he rejected the term "Capitalism", argued that Capitalism and wage-labor were creations of the State and spoke in favor of abolishing wage-labor. He argued the only way to end the State was mass social unrest and opposition to authority.

That's Left-Rothbardians for you.

[Anonymous No.3125987]

>>3125976

This guy's on the right track. Do NOT listen to the people throwing around names of liberals, anarcho-capitalists and other capitalist-apologists.

[Anonymous No.3125989]

>>3125976
pretty comprehensive. I'd also recommend a book called Black Flame although they make some strange arguments (I.e. that anarcho-syndicalism is the only legitimately anarchist anarchism), but it is really well done.

[Anonymous No.3125999]

James C. Scott is good.
"Seeing Like a State"
"The Art of Not Being Governed"

Also, Paul Goodman isn't talked about much in recent times, but he was a prominent anarchist during the 1960s.
"Growing Up Absurd"
"Drawing the Line"
"Communitas"

Oh, and David Graeber is an important anarchist today. His main works are "Debt: The First Five Thousand Years" and "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology".

[Anonymous No.3126004]

>>3125999

Debt: The First Five Thousand Years is an excellent work. Even though I am a communist I recommend Debt to all my friends who are interested in a book on economy/history

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.3126018]

>>3125986
I know him but it's a little difference in a little philosophy that it's not anarchism. Also Konkin supports markets, it's the basis of his manifesto, the central point of capitalism is still there.

It's not anarchism. Deal with it, if you want left anarchism stop reading those guys.

[Anonymous No.3126030]

There is so much idealism in this thread, and so little praxis, that Big Bill has turned over in his Soviet grave and demanded more alcohol and whores.

[Anonymous No.3126038]

>>3126018

>Pro market means non anarchist

The central point of Capitalism is NOT markets, it is mass wage-labor. A Mutualist market is a completely different mode of production then a Capitalist one.

Go read some fucking Proudhon. There are many variants of anarchism that involve markets. Mutualism is the most important of them, and it is the oldest form of Anarchism. Or are you going to argue that Proudhon wasn't an anarchist because he was in favor of markets too?

>>3125989

> (I.e. that anarcho-syndicalism is the only legitimately anarchist anarchism)

Since the days of Marx, Communists and Syndicalists of different types have tried their hardest to monopolize the Socialist movement. I have no idea what is it about Communism that does it, but they've been doing it for 150 years.

[Anonymous No.3126049]

>2012
>Not being a nihilistic hedonistic anarchist

I thought /lit/ was smart

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.3126097]

>>3126030
>Praxis
Ok, this is 4chan after all. Be careful though, in some countries you can get in jail for reading insurrectionary stuff.

The Armed Joy - Alfredo María Bonanno, the craziest anarchist i know. That's one of the complex works he has, but the rest is pure chaos. Read his bio too, he tried to assault a bank two years ago, he's nearly 80 years old

Anarchism, insurrections and insurrectionalism - Joe Black

The temporary autonomous zone (TAZ) - Hakim Bey

Recipes for disaster - Crimethinc (a "peaceful" direct action guide)

Use TOR. Search this and lurk the different anarchists sites, there's a german one with hundreds of books i ain't going to describe. torlinkbgs6aabns.onion


Search the experiences of: IAF in Italy, Action Directe in France, movement 2 june, the revolts in Chile of 2011, the greek revolts, conspiracy of fire cells (there's a new book about them and other experiences of the international anarchist movement in internet, forgot the name though).

[Anonymous No.3126104]

>>3126097
If you think sporadic armed action is praxis…
…seriously /lit/.

Where's the development of proletarian collectivity in any of this? There's more praxis in a consumer's co-operative store than in any of Hakim Bey.

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.3126111]

>>3126038
Like i said in one of my posts, Proudhon it's a proto-anarchist like Godwin, he's not really an anarchist.

A social system based in markets will eventually lead to new inequalities and economic powers will flourish.

>sage
u mad?

[VurtKonnegut No.3126125]

>>3126111
>implying anarcho socialism can't lead to inequality

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.3126126]

>>3126104
Praxis is not only "violence", i like Hakim Bey, but sometimes he's too postmodern imo.

Urban guerrilla it's a way for insurrection and/or revolution too. And get the fuck out of here with your "proletarian collectivity", we're in a new kind of society, adapt your words. But if you're feeling old read about the spanish catalonia and makhnovists. Maybe zapatistas, but they're not "proletarians" and their collectivism is kinda different.

[Anonymous No.3126133]

>>3126125
>anarcho socialism
>socialism
>SOCIALISM

[Anonymous No.3126142]

>>3126126
When you pick the most oppressed part of Mexico, then yes, you can find semi-peasants.

Please demonstrate an Urban Guerilla strategy that has achieved as much democratic control over material reality, as, for example, the repressed reform in Czechoslovakia in 1968 or the mass action in Italy through the 1970s?

The Urban Guerilla is a dead end. If you want to talk about a successful praxis in relation to armed struggle, then I can begin slowly talking about the National Front for Liberation's co-dependent relationship with actual rural proletarian revolution in Southern Vietnam—but it is messy, ugly, and not neat or utopian. And it was only and directly supporting collective rural seizure of the means of production.

We're in a theory thread on /lit/ I'll use the precise terms, not the ones I use in zines.

[Anonymous No.3126143]

Capitalism & Schizophrenia - Deleuze & Guattari (though ATP is probably more what you're after)

Empire/Multitude/Commonwealth/Declaration - Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri

New Lines of Alliance - Guattari & Negri

[VurtKonnegut No.3126151]

>>3126133
omg wow

>captcha: Unequal egiogiu

[Anonymous No.3126156]

>>3126143
…

And this is why Autonomia has failed to pierce the factories when Operaismo did.

[VurtKonnegut No.3126170]

>>3126133
>>3126151

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

[Anonymous No.3126173]

>>3126170
>social
>not different from socialism

[VurtKonnegut No.3126183]

>>3126173
>"also called socialist anarchism or anarchist socialism"

Oh wow

[Anonymous No.3126185]

>>3126156
The factory is crucial but it isn't everything

[Anonymous No.3126205]

>>3126185
No, it isn't, but contemporary libertarian struggle (anarchists and libertarian communists and Marxists) have abandoned the workplace in theory and in practice.

At least half the working class still are in workplaces. At least half of the rest of the working class wishes that they were in workplaces. We are running un and underemployment rates between 20 and 60%.

Workers, strangely, still care about work and freedom at work. And Negri's arseflapping from the face does not help.

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.3126227]

>>3126142
Urban guerrillas have never achieved anything. It's a kind of direct action. It has been impossible to reach a kind of revolution in the late capitalism society of the west, even the old way it's now difficult to achieve for complex reasons like surveillance, the majority of the population living in cities, NO GUNS (no money, no production, simple) and not a big social unrest since the great depression.

Like you said, we could talk about the practice of countries like Vietnam or Perú, we can argue about maoism because that's an easy way to get the power, but we all know the big costs of that. If i believe in anarchism it's because it's the only ethical social philosophy out there, but at the same time it's a contradiction because i know it's nearly impossible to achieve.


But history it's weird, random, sometimes it has no sense at all. Greece is in chaos right now, some neighborhoods are occupied since 2007 and there's a lot of selfmanagement in there. Lybia too, one year since the revolution and there are still self-managed neighboorhoods, towns and factories. A lot of factories, even hospitals in Greece. That's common to anarchism, trotskysm and autonomism, but it's something in a depressive world.

[Anonymous No.3126235]

It's interesting that op had his curiosity piqued by anarchist philosophy coming from a classical liberal stance.

>With the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and extended the radical humanist message of the enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals that were perverted into an ideology to sustain the emerging social order. - Chomsky

Hey op, I recommend Anarchism; From Theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin as a great introduction.

[Anonymous No.3126239]

>>3126205
While abandoning the workplace is probably an adequate characterization of D&G, I think hardt & negri are at least steering themselves towards accessibility. Declaration at least toned it down a bit

[Anonymous No.3126245]

>>3126227
It is something. I'd suggest you read up on the Hungarian workers councils, in the Solidarity pamphlette (online) and in Bill Lomax's monograph on Hungary, and in Bill Lomax (ed.)'s sourcebook on the councils. The sourcebook is fucking expensive though.

Hungary shows the non-violent way to use workers power. Violence was an afterthought after the army there armed the class. It is instructive for mid level capitalist powers like Britain or Greece or France where the proletariat is entirely urbanised and disarmed.

And Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 demonstrate that we become more powerful the more peaceful we become. Our revolutions become total, rather than partial. Nobody had to go to Gyor from Budapest with a column of conscripted peasant boys to bring the council there into being.

Vietnam is worth revisiting for the difference between the NFL and the revolution—an important thing to look at in relation to the problem of Leninist parties.

[Anonymous No.3126262]

>>3126239
Their books are way, way, way too long. Their categories and stories are far too obtuse. I prefer Cleaver, Wright and Dyer-Witherford out of the anglophone Autonomists.

Try this: http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781409411741

[Anonymous No.3126269]

>>3125863
>The recent bourgeois appropriation of the word "anarchy" (see so-called "anarcho-capitalism") is a complete perversion of anarchist thought.

Capitalism is the natural state of humanity. Fuck off commie.

[Anonymous No.3126275]

>>3126269

lol the 'natural state of humanity' yet its only become systemic the last ~300 years or so, its conquest arguably still incomplete globally

[Anonymous No.3126278]

>>3126269
>natural
>anarcho-anything

[Anonymous No.3126281]

>>3126275
>implying capitalism is some sense hasn't existed since forever

[Anonymous No.3126283]

>>3126275
Just playing devil's advocate but dialectical progression bro; we've arrived at the end of history

[Anonymous No.3126285]

>>3126281
You chose the least persuasive argument to use

[Anonymous No.3126286]

>>3126281

it hasnt existed very long at all though. this is a historical fact.

[Anonymous No.3126289]

>>3126275
Kinda like the theory of individual freedom and natural rights outside of the collective, you stupid fucking anarchist scum.

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.3126290]

>>3126245
Nice. I have a trot book about the hungarian insurrection of the '56, it wasn't so "peaceful", it had a lot of urban fighting and direct action, the kind of violence that will never get to the power but it's more a rebellion image than an actual revolution. Anyway, it had a lot councils too, here in Chile we're organizing that way, but it's not the only thing we do, violence works here sometimes (as an empiric argument haha).

I'll read it.

[Anonymous No.3126303]

>>3126290
The violence was primarily "self-defence" rather than insurrectionary; it followed on from the councils. What's more important than the November 4 November 10 resistance is the November 10 through late December strikes by the councils—anyway, the violence was defensive, self-limiting, and sought to arrest enemies for trial rather than execute. And it was under thoroughly democratic control. The primary resistance was called off by the councils and people bothered to listen.

(Admittedly by this time even Dunapelente had fallen in Budapest).

Violence can work, but we both know the reasons why we don't primarily discuss this on open forums, etc.

[Anonymous No.3126295]

>>3126289

right, our ideology changes as our economic conditions change, locked in a dialectical relation. read some Marx, bro. this static idea of 'humanity' is ignorant of both history and science.

[Anonymous No.3126296]

>>3126285
>spew incoherent anarchist babble
>Well actually, kind sir, capitalism has existed in some sense since forever.
>T-THATS L-LIKE THE LEAST PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT EVER BRO

[Anonymous No.3126297]

>>3126289
anarchism based on either of those two is hardly anarchism. That was the whole point of the objection that started this conversation, there is no anarcho-capitalism

[Anonymous No.3126306]

>>3126296
Actually I was the one who suggested you use the hegel/dialectics argument.

Saying capitalism has existed since forever is just historically wrong.

[Anonymous No.3126307]

>>3126296

in what sense has capitalism existed forever?

[Anonymous No.3126310]

if capitalism is so fundamental to humanity then how can socialists/anarchists even exist in the first place?

[Anonymous No.3126311]

>>3126297
Let me guess, your father made you do the dishes as a teenager and now you think all kinds of authority or hierarchy are evil? Egalitarianism is antithetical to anarchism.

[Anonymous No.3126319]

>>3126310
>if the belief in a deity is so fundamental to humanity then how can atheists exist?!!? c-checkmate!

Is this the best that commies can do?

[Anonymous No.3126320]

>>3126296
Slavery has always existed, but we've mostly got it down to Erotic Roleplay, more remote African communities with remaining peasantries, and Children in Bangladesh. It doesn't mean we can't or oughn't abolish it except as a fully consented kink.

People go to Renaissance Faires, and nobody dies of the plague or is burnt alive.

People do "Roman" orgies, and nobody is killed in order to preserve status.

One day capitalism will be an obscure sexual fetish. "OH YEAH BABY MAKE ME LABOUR ON MACHINES WHOSE VALUE I REPRODUCE THROUGH MY OWN EFFORT WHILE YOU APPROPRIATE MY SURPLUS. M—C…P…C'—M'!!!!"

i came a little in my pants

[Anonymous No.3126321]

>>3126295
I have read marx and am anti-capitalist (but not dialectic, hence not marxist), which is why I said "to play devil's advocate"

Also the point is that economic conditions may be the vector of change but that doesn't mean that an endpoint can't be reached. It's just which way it panned out.

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.3126330]

>>3126303
Exactly.

Let's see how the actual revolts in the west evolve. And what happens after the crisis of capitalism ends, part of it depends of Syria right now.

I'm sure of one thing though, direct action will always work!

[Anonymous No.3126331]

>>3126320
I hope you know that the marxist labor theory is empirically false.

[Anonymous No.3126341]

>>3126331
>empirically false
Models can't be empirically false. You've got a lot more epistemology and theory of knowledge to go through before you're up for this debate. Read Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos.

[Anonymous No.3126351]

>>3126341
I find a diamond in my backyard.
I sell it for 10 million dollars.
I make more money than a coal miner makes in his entire life.

Labor theory debunked. Come back when you're ready to join the big leagues, kiddo. My intellect is a little too much for you, clearly.

[Anonymous No.3126363]

>>3126351

How exactly does that debunk the labor theory of value? Marx talks about this kind of stuff within the first 15 pages or so of Capital iirc

[Anonymous No.3126368]

Vonu: The Search for Personal Freedom

Seymour Melman - Decision Making and Productivity. Not anarchist but attacks the idea that rise in worker wages means a rise in prices based on a study he performed himself on a English company over the span of a few years. Critical of unions (yet somewhat supportive) and critical of the state though he sits on the left. May be hard to find.

Renzo Novatore
Jason McQuinn
Georges Palante
Josiah Warren
Lysander Spooner
Max Stirner
Wolfi Landstreicher
Pirate Utopias by Peter Lamborn Wilson (as well as his other work)

[Anonymous No.3126374]

>>3126363
>The labor theories of value (LTV) are heterodox economic theories of value which argue that the value of a commodity is related to the labor needed to produce or obtain that commodity

Which is false.

[Anonymous No.3126381]

>>3126341
>Models can't be empirically false

But if the claims of models are anchored in the real world, can't these assumptions be contradicted by material evidence?

E.g The volcanic model of global warming states that earth has been rising in temperature due to volcanoes, not man. If you show volcanoes contributes little to warming, the model is less probable or even false.

[Anonymous No.3126375]

>>3125787

hey op, try mikhail bakunin, you will like it.

[Anonymous No.3126376]

>>3126374

How exactly is it false?

[Anonymous No.3126387]

>>3126376
I find a diamond in my backyard.
I sell it for 10 million dollars.
I make more money than a coal miner makes in his entire life.

Value is not tied in any way to labor. Just leave before I embarrass you further.

[Anonymous No.3126393]

>>3126381
Yes, and blind assertions aren't taken as demonstrations. While I think Popper's theory of science is relatively useless shit, I'm happy to accept strong empirical attacks on core assumptions or standard predictions as a demonstration of a theory's lack of utility.

However, I've heard a lot of these and if you're going to trot out Mises's strawman games then you may as well clap your trap now.

[Anonymous No.3126396]

>>3126387

That's because value is social, as in you're paying for the socially neccesary labour time to extract diamonds. If diamonds were easily found in everyone's backyards then value would drop, as the average amount of labor it takes to find one would be far lower.

aka; you've never actually read Marx, because he talks about this really early on in the first part of Capital Vol. 1

[Anonymous No.3126400]

>>3126351
Back to >>>/pol/ with you. I'm sorry, but you really need to ground yourself in the literature in this area to prevent yourself appearing as a fuckstick in public.

[Anonymous No.3126407]

>>3126396
> If diamonds were easily found in everyone's backyards then value would drop

Yeah, because of fucking supply and demand. Jesus christ marxists are fucking retarded.

>as the average amount of labor it takes to find one would be far lower

HAHAHAHA, WHAT? If I find something by chance while walking down the street, I did not labor at all. Yet it is still worth much more than an item produced by a man working his whole life.

>>3126400
Samefag desperation.

[Anonymous No.3126417]

>>3126407
It has a conspicuous value too, it's not only a matter of supply and demand.

Also the world has a lot of diamonds, it's scarcity it's only a play of supply.

[Anonymous No.3126425]

>>3126417
>It has a conspicuous value too, it's not only a matter of supply and demand.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.3126430]

>>3126407

Supply and demand by themselves do not explain anything, they are merely the fluctuations in price around a value (which is determined by the socially necessary labor time). Again, Marx treats this within literally the first 20 pages or so of Capital Vol. 1. It really shows how lazy you are to have not read at least the first few chapters of Capital. In a perfectly functioning free market, supply and demand will be in equilibrium. But what determines this equilibrium price? Socially necessary labor time.

It's pretty clear you're in over your head here dude.

[Anonymous No.3126435]

>>3126430
It is time to stop feeding boring trolls and talk more about Hungary or the end of history.

[Anonymous No.3126442]

>>3126430
>But what determines this equilibrium price? Socially necessary labor time.

Nope. Again, labor in no way affects the price of a good. If that were the case, it would be impossible to go bankrupt.

> It really shows how lazy you are to have not read at least the first few chapters of Capital.

I doubt you've read any Mises. I'll give you this chance to disappear from the thread to save face.

[Anonymous No.3126446]

>>3126442

You're an idiot

[Anonymous No.3126450]

>>3126446
Marxists reduced to name calling, how embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.3126455]

>>3126425
Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen.

[Anonymous No.3126458]

>>3126407
Not a Marxist, but doesn't labour relates to value sometimes?

If I sell lemonade, and I pay some guy $1 an hour to make it, then in order to keep operating, I'll have to sell atleast >$1 of lemonade. Demand comes into it, but so does labour costs.

[Anonymous No.3126465]

>>3126442

Just saying "Nope" over and over again isn't exactly forwarding an argument, but I'm quite used to that from pro-capitalists. How exactly would it be impossible to go bankrupt?

[Anonymous No.3126474]

>>3126458
>If I sell lemonade, and I pay some guy $1 an hour to make it, then in order to keep operating, I'll have to sell atleast >$1 of lemonade.

In order to stay in business you will have to charge over the cost of labor. But that has nothing to do with the value of the lemonade. That was my point though, in a sense, if value was tired to labor, no companies would go out of business because it would be impossible to charge under labor costs, which we know is not true.

[Anonymous No.3126479]

>>3126474
Your strawman is boring.

[Anonymous No.3126482]

>>3126479
Your lack of an argument is boring. This whole thread you have been parroting things you got from neckbearded youtube vloggers about how totally awesome marxism is. Grow up, child.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE2M7g_IWSE

[Anonymous No.3126485]

>>3126474
Ah, I confused value and price. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.3126495]

>>3126482
You haven't read any Marx, because you're criticising a Smithean theory of value. Explain simply how Marx distinguishes between the reproduction of labour and thus the possibility of labour power and the production of surplus value?

It is relatively simple, it is contained in a memorable chapter after the chapters everybody skips, it is easy to display that you have read and understood Marx's theory and that your critiques are actually critiques of his theory and not of a strawman.

Please go ahead, it should take you a quarter of this post to explain how Marx describes the difference.

[Anonymous No.3126493]

>>3126474

The value of the lemonade is constant capital (value of raw materials and tools) plus variable capital (labor). Profit is due to the difference between the value of labour power and the amount of labour the worker actually expends in a given time period.

[Anonymous No.3126504]

>>3126493
>The value of the lemonade is constant capital (value of raw materials and tools) plus variable capital (labor).

Then explain how businesses go out of businesses if the value of their product is always equal to or greater than the labor required.

I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.3126522]

>>3126504

Because it's 'socially necessary labor time', that is, if the labor expended is deemed NOT socially necessary (no demand) then the company will go out of business.

[Anonymous No.3126524]

>>3126504

You're confusing value and price.

[Anonymous No.3126526]

>>3126522
>if the labor expended is deemed NOT socially necessary (no demand)
>mfw marxists claim that value is determined by labor but then contradict themselves by saying the labor is only valuable is demand is sufficient

[Anonymous No.3126529]

>>3126526

I don't think you're reading. The labor theory of value is not just "labor", but 'socially necessary labor time'

[Anonymous No.3126533]

>>3126526

You're mixing up Marx's position and the LTV as stated before Marx.

[Anonymous No.3126541]

>>3126529
>>3126533
Don't play his game of "prove me wrong." Let's discuss Goldman versus de Cleyre on sexual freedom. Goldman's sexual hypocrisy and unwillingness to "rehabilitate" Berkman is deplorable.

[Anonymous No.3126558]

>>3126529
>>3126533
If value is determined by demand, then labor is not constant capital. I've already won this thread. You are literally both(and by both I mean one person samefagging) hanging on by a thread.

All the shit you spewed has been easily debunked by yours truly.

[Anonymous No.3126576]

>>3126558

Marx says labor power is variable capital, not constant capital.

[Anonymous No.3126581]

>>3126558

Value is not determined by demand, it is determined by socially necessary labour time. If the labour time spent making an item is not socially necessary, then it will have no demand.

Again, supply and demand can only ever explain fluctuations in price. In a perfectly functioning free market, supply and demand will be in equilibrium, at which point the price will meet the value of the commodity.

[Anonymous No.3126588]

>>3126581
> In a perfectly functioning free market, supply and demand will be in equilibrium
>Look at me mom, I'm making things up on the internet!

>determined by socially necessary labour time

I find a diamond in my backyard and sell it for millions of dollars even though I didn't work at all. Debunked.

[Anonymous No.3126594]

>>3126588

You could do that in a perfectly functioning free market because you're paying for the average amount of socially necessary labor time it would take to extract a diamond. Similarly, a person who spent far too many resources in order to find their diamond would still only be about to sell it for the market value.

A market is a social thing, so its no surprise that the buyer has no idea about the specific nature of your commodity and will pay you the market average.

[VurtKonnegut No.3126596]

This thread proves that we are all in hell right now and that we've created it ourselves.

because it was in demand. Capitalism>commies

[Anonymous No.3126600]

>>3126351
Congratulations, this is the dumbest post ever made on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.3126607]

>>3126600
>>3126594
Samefag. I can tell by the posting style and having seen many samefags in my time.

[Anonymous No.3126606]

>>3126594
>You could do that in a perfectly functioning free market because you're paying for the average amount of socially necessary labor time it would take to extract a diamond

nice citation

[Anonymous No.3126610]

>>3126596

Why did the Soviet Style societies have a higher proportion of output dedicated to social services than non-Soviet Style societies? Why has heavily planned capitalism (China) managed a higher GDP growth rate than non-heavily planned capitalism, such that China's recessions are growth at 3% rather than at 12%, etc...

It isn't over yet; but it should be acknowledged that Capitalism is far more economically and socially progressive than Feudalism.

[Anonymous No.3126612]

>>3126607
hurr semfeg

[Anonymous No.3126615]

>>3126610
>Why has heavily planned capitalism (China) managed a higher GDP growth rate than non-heavily planned capitalism, such that China's recessions are growth at 3% rather than at 12%, etc

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy shit your dense. Newsflash slugger, emerging economies grow at a fucking faster rate.

[Anonymous No.3126620]

>>3126615
And China is growing at a faster rate than Britain, Germany or the United States in the 19th century.

Also your "developmental" model is rejected in favour of world-systems theory.

[sage No.3126631]

>>3126620
>China is growing at a faster rate than Britain, Germany or the United States in the 19th century

I seriously hope you're not comparing China's globalized economy to 19th century western countries.

[Anonymous No.3126636]

>>3126631
Why not, we've had people manufacture a strawman out of Smith to beat Marx with. It is a free for all of blatant lying. So making a diachronic comparison between unplanned imperialist economies in the 19th century and planned imperialist economies in the 21st century is small beans.

[Anonymous No.3126684]

>>3126636

[Anonymous No.3126921]

>>3126320
I lol'd