/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4516045]

Does anyone outside America give a damn about Ann Rand?

[Anonymous No.4516050]

More like Man Rand

[Anonymous No.4516055]

Americans don't really give a shit about her outside of her cult

[Anonymous No.4516056]

>>4516045
She's on fire among the various European young Right movements.
Young being a key word

[Anonymous No.4516058]

Yes, jews of all nationalities love her because she makes it seem like they deserve the money they and their ancestors stole and that without them society will collapse.

[Anonymous No.4516090]

1. Horrible writer
2. "Might makes right" is hardly a new argument
3. Doesn't understand/misreads Nietzsche
4. Only of use to greedy bastards trying to fool gullible populace into accepting plutocracy.
5. Doesn't fool anyone who reads widely.

[Anonymous No.4516105]

Germany here. The answer is _No._

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4516106]

>>4516058
Quit with the stupid generalizations. There are plenty of non-Jew rich bastards out there.
And you KNOW there are plenty of ultra leftist Jews who despise this nutjob.

[Anonymous No.4516113]

>>4516045
No. Zizek wrote an article on her. Given what you know about Zizek, what do you think non Americans think about her?

[Anonymous No.4516196]

>>4516113
no one outside of america gives a fuck. We don't have anywhere near as many super right wing libertarians as you do

Genuinely, capitalism is pretty much a dirty word

[Anonymous No.4516214]

>>4516196
>Genuinely, capitalism is pretty much a dirty word
Then why is Europe capitalist?

[Anonymous No.4516228]

>>4516214
We live in a capitalist world. The free market is doing terrible things, but it is the best way to grow a civilization and lift your people from poverty.

[Anonymous No.4516251]

>>4516045
If it wasn't for cultural references in shows like South Park, Simpsons, Futurama, nobody in Europe would even know her name. And generally speaking almost nobody cares about her. Even the right-libertarians are more likely to discuss Nozick, Friedman etc.

[Anonymous No.4516265]

Bad philosopher, worse writer. Ugh.

I think the Russians care about her because she proved maybe Communism wasn't all that bad of a system if it was the bane of her existence

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516297]

>>4516228

>The free market is doing terrible things
>implying

There are some terrible things happening, but I can't think of any that we can blame on the "free market" considering we don't actually have any freed markets.

[Anonymous No.4516301]

>>4516297

your autism forever

[Anonymous No.4516307]

>>4516297
NTSing on /lit/

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516308]

>>4516301

If you could point me in the direction of the nearest freed market, I'd be greatly obliged.

[Anonymous No.4516311]

>>4516196
Even in America capitalism isn't associated with rainbows and sunshine, it's just that socialism is associated with Nazis, Communists, Black Panthers, etc. I honestly feel that it's racial issues that keep Americans from identifying with left-wing causes, if there was a provision that said only white people could qualify for universal health care I think most of the south would happily sign on.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4516313]

>>4516297
Amend that to "The markets are doing terrible things"
There ya go.
And just in case, no, "free markets" wouldn't be the answer.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516322]

>>4516313

Technically, corporations and their backing States are doing terrible things. The fact that markets are distorted in such a way that capital centralizes and firms stratify is hardly the fault of actual market forces, though.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4516333]

>>4516322
Money will always run up to a bunch of people who will compromise us all. When a state controls it right, spreading it around, it works pretty well, but again, the ones with the most cash start buying political power.
Capitalism is fucked.

[Anonymous No.4516340]

>>4516322
Is there really any such thing as a pure market force? I mean, is it really possible for them to exist in an abstract form divorced from IE common earthly everyday reality?

[Anonymous No.4516345]

>>4516308
Keep up that NTS. You don't even have a theoretical category.

[Anonymous No.4516347]

>seeing American responses to Marxism, socialism, anything associated with communism

like in most of the world people are just kind of mellow about these things, but i've seen americans react with the same vehemence as citizens of the former people's republic of romania.no wonder you have this irrational hateboner for china. it's really quite astounding.

[Anonymous No.4516353]

>>4516347
we get taught it from childhood man its not our fault

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516354]

>>4516333

>Capitalism is fucked.

Capitalism is completely fucked. It also so happens that, in every case where Capitalism sprang up, a State had created the prerequisite conditions for its organizational model. Without the State, centrifugal market forces would disperse capital, smaller scales of economy would shrink firms, and Hayekian distributed information problems would force firms to flatten (often along cooperative lines).

>>4516340

"Market force" does end up being an incredibly vague and abstract term. In this case, I was attempting to note that, given that current markets are not free, you can't really blame society's woes on "market forces" as a fact, because the market, as a stigmergic institution, is currently warped and altered by State intervention into it.

>>4516345

>Keep up that NTS.

I don't know what this means.

>You don't even have a theoretical category.

The theories I espouse generally fall into the "freed market anti-capitalist" category.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516357]

>>4516347

The word "socialism," in America, has been completely evacuated of all meaning. It's on the same level as "anarchy" and "communism."

[Anonymous No.4516360]

>>4516196

so... you are an authority on ALL of the world?

Who is "we?"

[Anonymous No.4516364]

>>4516311
well you are honestly wrong and have an amazing inability to actually understand why someone disagrees with your philosophy

[Anonymous No.4516365]

>>4516353
i think that's part of why occupy was so utterly useless. you can't have all this outrage about monopoly capitalism without suggesting anything to *do* about it. even social democracy seems to be a forbidden concept for your country. i like america in a lot of ways but the cold war fucked you up almost as badly as it did russia.

[Anonymous No.4516369]

>>4516354
>Without the State, centrifugal market forces would disperse capital, smaller scales of economy would shrink firms, and Hayekian distributed information problems would force firms to flatten (often along cooperative lines).
Sure, buddy.

[Anonymous No.4516373]

>>4516365


well you are wrong about the peridoization of the process.

Progressivism was the primary political shift that changed the way Americans perceived themselves and each other.

It created a class schism that has never been healed. Progressives demanded that the government determine what is best for people, but they were all swept up by a greater battle between merchants, industrialists, and financiers who rallied the emerging middle class to fight THEIR battles all in an effort to disenfranchise voters by redirecting the IMPORTANCE of votes

[Anonymous No.4516378]

>>4516373
i did some work on american politics last year at university

it's really really complicated

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516382]

>>4516369

Without State funded infrastructure, serviceable market spheres would shrink. Without IP law, monopolies on production and distribution wouldn't exist. Without military and political expansion to open up foreign markets, third world labor wouldn't be an option. Without Byzantine tax codes, smaller, more radically organized firms could enter the marketplace. Without high barriers to entry in the banking industry, Mutual Banks could give loans at the cost of administration (i.e. virtually free). Without preferential land grants, mega-corporations couldn't keep expanding ad infinitum. Without all of these, basic Hayekian distributed information problems would cripple large firms, forcing them to downsize and flatten.

Where exactly is this analysis falling short?

[Anonymous No.4516387]

>>4516378
Which nation are you from? There are gigantic schisms in American and most european fields ..

the historigraphies have developed in very different manners. U.S. history and anthropology are rooted in German models ... not British... but we are still different from them too now

[Anonymous No.4516395]

>>4516387
switzerland. the most conservative country ever (for serious).

[Anonymous No.4516405]

>>4516395

I don't really know much about Swiss historians.
I assume they do not do a lot of cultural history..
Most European historians are still very top-down (from our point of view)... political and diplomatic history.. military history... Annals still look alive and kicking when an American reads a work by a European

[Anonymous No.4516410]

>>4516347
It also doesn't help that the GOP now uses the word "socialism" to refer to anything they even slightly dislike.

Nobody in America knows what fucking socialism actually is anymore even, it's gotten that bad.

[Anonymous No.4516414]

no.

[Anonymous No.4516417]

>>4516382
Without the state I and my coworkers would shoot you for the scab cunt you are.

[Anonymous No.4516419]

>>4516405
i study in england, and there's lots of cultural stuff there at least from my point of view. had to look carefully for military history topics instead of 'the role of women in x period' or etc.

[Anonymous No.4516420]

>>4516214
I can't even. Europe is capitalist? Have you opened a regulator check list or a GDP spending portfolio? Social spending is enormous in comparison to just 30 years ago. Corporate socialism is the norm, with the socialists "more equal managers" being state approved CEO's and businesses. Most markets are state approved monopolies, with a veil of choice being offered to the consumer by the dividing of brands and marketing. Same thing is happening in America, though to maybe a lesser extent.

Capitalism is dead in Europe. Everyone's so far left they think that if a company can decide their employees' wages, it's a fucking catastrophe.

[Anonymous No.4516424]

>>4516382
>Without State funded infrastructure, serviceable market spheres would shrink.
Not too sure if the shrinking of infrastructure is something recommendable.

>Without IP law, monopolies on production and distribution wouldn't exist.
That's not how monopolies work. They exist now, in reality with an already established basis (or bases) of operations, connections, practical know-how etc. There is a reason why inferior OPs for PCs are still sold, for instance. MS has managed to establish itself as standard.

>Without military and political expansion to open up foreign markets, third world labor wouldn't be an option.
Why's that? What would prevent them for resorting to the 3rd world?

>Without Byzantine tax codes, smaller, more radically organized firms could enter the marketplace
What has the tax code to do with commercial failure or success?

>Without high barriers to entry in the banking industry, Mutual Banks could give loans at the cost of administration (i.e. virtually free).
If you are refering to a fixed rate of proprietary capital that is holding back banks, then you might want to take a look at the development of the financial industry from 2008 on. This shit is still not over yet.

>Without preferential land grants, mega-corporations couldn't keep expanding ad infinitum.
But that would require a law, wouldn't it ?

>Without all of these, basic Hayekian distributed information problems would cripple large firms, forcing them to downsize and flatten.
Yeah, sure...

>Where exactly is this analysis falling short?
Because of a mix of reality, business nature and human nature.

[Anonymous No.4516425]

>>4516410
hyperbole ..or do you really believe that "nobody" knows..as in 0 ...

What % do you think knows?
I find hyperbole to be useless

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516426]

>>4516417

>scab

I'm going to let you in on a little tip.

I'm a socialist.

Pic related.

>>4516420

Welfare Statism and socialism are not equivalents. If workers aren't self managing productive assets, then you don't have socialism.

[Anonymous No.4516431]

>>4516419
role of women is social history not cultural... most likely

military history is so outdated that it is amateur work

the British are probably the closest to us... the biggest difference between the U.S. and Britain is that U.S. scholars are less likely to treat historical documents as "living" documents..

Both strategies have their merits

[Anonymous No.4516435]

>>4516347
We tend to despise people that would send us to gulags and subject us to extreme poverty just so they can feel altruistic.

[Anonymous No.4516436]

fuck this dumb whore

[Anonymous No.4516441]

>>4516426
You sure you're not an ancap?

Because I haven't seen a lot of people talking about how monopolistic behavior is the result of the state distortion of pure market forces who are also socialists.

[Anonymous No.4516445]

>>4516431
>social history not cultural
You might want to learn what happened to social history in England in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Put it this way: The Thompsonians lost outside of labour studies.

[Anonymous No.4516447]

>>4516426
>Welfare Statism and socialism are not equivalents. If workers aren't self managing productive assets, then you don't have socialism.

"Workers managing the means of production" doesn't mean anything. The reality of socialism is that the state dictates the means and ends, and the "workers" are the lucky bureaucrats that sit in the highest seats of power.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516454]

>>4516424

>Not too sure if the shrinking of infrastructure is something recommendable.

In my opinion, it is. Localized production and relative self sufficiency is something to strive towards.

>That's not how monopolies work.

I wasn't talking about the formation of an actual economic monopoly. I was noting that patents give monopolistic rights on the production and distribution of certain goods. They do, of course, contribute to the centralization of capital ownership through this.

>Why's that? What would prevent them for resorting to the 3rd world?

Because military conflict is most often used to access those foreign markets in the first place, which is followed by political diplomacy to keep them open. It's no secret that America helped sponsor the overthrow of various States in South America throughout the 1900s to secure foreign trade and production options.

>What has the tax code to do with commercial failure or success?

First, it's incredibly complicated. If you don't have enough capital to hire full time, professional accountants, taxes are often treacherous waters to navigate. Secondly, the current tax code favors traditional forms of corporate organization over radical forms of firm organization. For instance, I live on a commune which was sued by the IRS over its tax status. We ended up having to organize along incredibly complicated lines wherein each member is neither an employee nor employer. We won the case, but it cost us time and money just to be seen as a legitimate organization in the eyes of the State.

>This shit is still not over yet.

Unfortunately true.

>But that would require a law, wouldn't it ?

I'll use an example. Walmart receives preferential land grants to expand into new areas. Their cost of expansion is artificially low relative to independent upstarts. Without the government practically giving away land to incumbent capital, competition wouldn't be so suppressed.

>Yeah, sure...

Information flows are everything.

[Anonymous No.4516456]

>>4516445
>]
social history is NOT cultural history. They are very different.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516461]

>>4516441

>Because I haven't seen a lot of people talking about how monopolistic behavior is the result of the state distortion of pure market forces who are also socialists.

Proudhon, Bakunin, Warren, Spooner, Tucker, Carson, Chartier, Wilbur, and Richman are some good examples.

Historically, some of the most vehement freed market proponents have been socialists.

>>4516447

>"Workers managing the means of production" doesn't mean anything.

It means exactly that, though. If you work at factory A, for it to be considered a socialist firm, you must also be part owner of factory A. Socialism is the word used to describe a firm (or an economy) in which workers and owners are the same people. Those who work in factory A also own factory A. Those who work in factory B also own factory B. It's an incredibly simple (and concrete) idea.

>The reality of socialism is that the state dictates the means and ends

If you haven't gathered this already, I'm not exactly a fan of the State. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.4516466]

>>4516297
>Derp, the free market fixes everything
>see's evidence of everything not being fixed
>well it's not working cause it's not free enough.

[Anonymous No.4516471]

>>4516347
The deep south doesn't speak for all of us.

[Anonymous No.4516473]

>>4516461
Do you believe that freeing the market is valuable or leads to good outcomes in itself?

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516474]

>>4516466

I'm going to go ahead and post a list of State interventions into the marketplace which centralize capital and stratify firms. This was compiled from "Markets Not Capitalism."

Government concentration of land and natural resources through legally fabricated land titles such as preferential land grants, nationalization of mineral and fossil fuel resources, local zoning codes, complex housing construction codes, land-use restrictions, “Urban Renewal,” and for-profit eminent domain and municipal development rackets.

Government control over the money supply through institutions such as the SEC, FDIC, TARP, Fannie, Freddie, IMF, World Bank, direct taxpayer bailouts, a “Too Big to Fail” mentality, and other various restrictions on access to the banking industry.

Government grants of monopoly privileges to patent holders and copyright holders which have quadrupled in length in recent years.

Government policies which serve to protect domestic interests from foreign competition through import tariffs, export subsidies, and the political manipulation of fiat currency exchange rates, among other, more targeted policies.

In agriculture, an extensive system of government cartels, USDA regulatory burdens, subsidies to artificially increase prices for sale in American markets, more subsidies to artificially lower prices for export to foreign markets, surplus buy-up programs, irrigation projects, Farm-to-Market road building projects, government technical support for more mechanized and capital-intensive forms of farming and other methods which concentrate agricultural production into large firms.

cont...

[Anonymous No.4516476]

>>4516426
Given that you propose the value form, and thus wage slavery, you're as socialist as the Soviet Union.

[Anonymous No.4516479]

>>4516456
They had their roots in the social history movement in England in the 1970s. Learn some fucking historiography before you open your shitbox.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516483]

>>4516474

The rapid expansion of standing military forces, paramilitary police forces, and “security” and “intelligence” agencies which give firms such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, DynCorp, and Blackwater guaranteed government contracts payed for with taxes.

Government funded infrastructure and transportation projects, along with legal restrictions on entrance into the taxi, bus, rail, subway, shipping, and airline industries.

Government restricted access to broadcast bandwidth through the FCC, which routinely favors incumbent corporations such as AT&T, Viacom, and Comcast, but also monopolistic concessions on laying cable and fiber which local governments generally grant to the first provider of cable, phone, and fiber-optic lines in a given area.

The proliferation of commercial regulations, government bureaucracy and red tape, business license fees, byzantine tax codes, government-enforced professional licensure cartels and fees - all of which, cumulatively, tend to benefit established businesses at the expense of new upstarts, to protect those who can afford the fees and lawyers and accountants necessary to meet the requirements from competition by those who cannot, and generally to the poor out of entrepreneurial opportunities, independent professions and more autonomous alternatives to wage labor.

Government prosecution of non-violent crimes which disproportionately affect the poor and minorities, ultimately restricting access to credit, education, and income earning, along with the deportation of undocumented workers from their established places of work and residence.

>>4516473

If we're talking about LEGITIMATELY freeing markets, than absolutely.

>>4516476

>Given that you propose the value form, and thus wage slavery

A wage system is necessary in corporate models, but becomes completely unnecessary in cooperative models.

[Anonymous No.4516485]

>>4516466

Well the free market is describing an idyllic state that WILL NEVER EXIST IN A GRAIN SURPLUS MODE OF PRODUCTION.

WILL NEVER EXIST IN A GRAIN SURPLUS MODE OF PRODUCTION

(fucking emphasis)

What "free market" is often a euphemism in political capital though is justification for gutting worker's rights, contracting government services to private firms, and just plain bullshit. I don't have anything against "the free market" but it's just not pragmatic except as a very mendacious usage.

[Anonymous No.4516486]

actually reading Atlas Shrugged right now. It's pretty cool

[Anonymous No.4516490]

>>4516354
>I don't know what that means.

You don't know much.

>The theories I espouse

You don't know what a category is either.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516491]

>>4516485

Every time an AnCap applauds the State selling productive assets to incumbent capital at a 50% markdown as "a triumph of the free market," Proudhon sheds a tear.

>>4516490

Well this is sure leading to some riveting debate and dialogue.

[Anonymous No.4516516]

>>4516491
>Well this is sure leading to some riveting debate and dialogue.
Given that you're incapable of the dialogue that you seek, and appear from this thread to be incapable of learning, I don't see any reason to move beyond disdain unless I have a pedagogic responsibility to you.

[« 零 » !Ry9.Zir1EM No.4516513]

>>4516485
>"free market"
>a euphemism in political capital though is justification for gutting worker's rights, contracting government services to private firms

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT "FREE MARKET" MEANS.

IT IS NOT HARD TO SEARCH FOR THE DEFINITION OF TERMS OF WHICH YOU ARE IGNORANT.

WHY DO YOU USE A TERM IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS?

[Anonymous No.4516521]

>>4516513
>dicdef
And here's that incapacity writ large.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516528]

>>4516516

If you're not going to interact with me in such a way that we could have a useful discussion, and you note that I'm causing you to experience a strong sense of disdain, I don't see why you're addressing me at all. Are you just a masochist? You could easily remedy the issues you seem to be experiencing by defining your terms or stepping back from the keyboard.

[Anonymous No.4516530]

I live in the left-leaning part of latin america and Rand is understandably popular amongst liberal youths. I consider myself a mutualist so I'm not a big fan myself but I think people living in relatively free capitalist economies tend to dismiss her far too quickly. You've never quite felt the giant throbbing cock of collectivism being violently forced up your ass for the sake of the people while bureaucrats and their cronies piss on you from above.

However I think her depiction of business magnates as a minority oppressed by the state and its parasites is laughable, considering they are usually working with the state against the people and benefiting from market restrictions.

[Anonymous No.4516541]

>>4516454
>Localized production and relative self sufficiency is something to strive towards.
Unlikely to successfully promote that in a world with such a high degree of labour division and general interdependence of a huge amount of corporations, regions, countries etc that pretty much (could) constitute a relatively high standard of living. I don't think you will be able to reverse or even just slightly rewind the world market.

>I wasn't talking about the formation of an actual economic monopoly
But it is actuality that matters if you want to assess how your political theory could take place in reality.

>I was noting that patents give monopolistic rights on the production and distribution of certain goods. They do, of course, contribute to the centralization of capital ownership through this.
Definitely, but what are you going to do about this? Wealthier corporations will always have a way to produce those goods in a more efficient and economic way or to produce them at all, if it is a costly production, let alone advertise them and so. IP laws are just one thing in a row of monopolistic tools.

>Because military conflict is most often used to access those foreign markets in the first place, which is followed by political diplomacy to keep them open.
Nowadays, most dominant states use their "friendship" in order to achieve what they want. I mean look at fucking Ukraine. The fact that the people there are protesting for parties that are admittedly willing to implement severe austerity politics and all that entails this policy (social cuts etc.) is just mind-boggling. They are not doing this at gun-point.
And even in today's 3rd world countries, corporations and states simply use one class against the other, one tribe against the others etc. Why make your hands dirty if you can achieve instability much cheaper?

>We won the case, but it cost us time and money just to be seen as a legitimate organization in the eyes of the State.
Didn't know it is so harsh in the US.

>Without the government practically giving away land to incumbent capital, competition wouldn't be so suppressed.
Every landowner will sell (likely even below value) to the one buyer he thinks of as most profitable though (or most profitable for the administrative unit they are responsible for, if they are officials). So even without a state, if I see a successful corporation wanting to buy land in my community/collective, I would probably trust them more to be able to be useful for this collective than a no-name.
So preferential land grants seem to be relatively tricky to deal with.

>Information flows are everything.
1. Information is both restricted by its codification and its means of transport
2. There are extremely powerful entities that are pretty much controlling the information of almost the entire planet to a certain degree
3. A lot of these entities are major corporations (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Viacom, Bertelsmann, News Corporation) etc.
4. So, no free information

[Anonymous No.4516542]

>>4516528
You need to be publicly reviled for the quality of your thought.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516543]

>>4516530

The main problem with Rand, compared to other radical Individualists, is that she expects you to prescribe to HER set of individualist ideals. Oh, you're a socialist? Too bad. By Rand's account, you're a Statist shill no matter what you do. You don't think that Minarchist Capitalism is The Ideal System? You're obviously suffering from sever Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. It's useless to say, "every man should live for his own sake," and then prescribe a path for every man to follow.

Also...

>I consider myself a mutualist

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.4516550]

>>4516425
>What % do you think knows?

2%, maybe less

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4516570]

>>4516541

I'm going to do a quick response and then head off to bed. The cows need to be milked in a few hours.

>...and general interdependence of a huge amount of corporations, regions, countries

It's not about promoting it for its own reasons. Rather, it's simply one effect that reducing State influence in the market brings. If the taxpayers are funding the infrastructure which brings your goods to market halfway across the country, you're going to be a smaller firm producing for local markets.

>Wealthier corporations will always have a way to produce those goods in a more efficient and economic way or to produce them at all

Not at all. The ceilings on economies of scale are artificially raised by all of the things I've mentioned. Hayekian information flow problems abound in large, stratified hierarchies that you see today. Information is slowed, distorted, and broken so much that by the time it gets from the workers, to management, back down to the workers, it's so mutilated that the courses of action that it dictates are irrational. Without the centralizing effects I've mentioned, economies of scale would be MUCH smaller. Kevin Carson writes extensively on this in "The Homebrew Industrial Revolution."

>Nowadays, most dominant states use their "friendship" in order to achieve what they want.

Indeed, as we've already performed the prerequisite military action to install "friendly" governments. That being the case, without continuous policing to keep shipping lanes open, and without the continuous renewal of trade agreements and political exchange with China, fewer firms would be able to find a foothold there for productive efforts. Plus, as I noted earlier, without all of the State funded infrastructure, moving goods large distances is much less cost effective.

>So even without a state, if I see a successful corporation wanting to buy land in my community/collective, I would probably trust them more to be able to be useful for this collective than a no-name.

The point I'd make is that the large, stratified firm is unlikely to be the most profitable model of organization in a freed market. You'd be better off going with the 10 employee, horizontally organized firm which isn't suffocating in information flow problems.

>So, no free information

I'm talking largely about intra-firm information flows and how it affects organizational models.

Good night!

[Anonymous No.4518252]

>>4516311
>socialism is associated with Nazis

Seriously, what?

So when the USSR defeated the Nazis, that was socialists defeating socialists? Is that seriously what's taught in American schools?

[Anonymous No.4518269]

>>4516530
>while bureaucrats and their cronies piss on you from above

This is the part that should be challenged/ changed then. Seriously, it's not better having no collectivism... and bureaucrats and their cronies still pissing on you from above.

Rand Fans basically just want to be the people who are doing the pissing from above

[Anonymous No.4518320]

>>4518252
American that went through public school here. We did not get taught the difference between socialism and communism until college.

[Anonymous No.4518536]

>>4516530
>However I think her depiction of business magnates as a minority oppressed by the state and its parasites is laughable, considering they are usually working with the state against the people and benefiting from market restrictions
But she didn't though, she called capititalists with government help "the worst of all economic phenomenon". Someone posted a list a while ago of the characters in Atlas Shrugged showing that there was a roughly equal ratio of upper class villains to heroes, middle class villains to heroes and working class villains to heroes.

[Anonymous No.4518546]

>>4516045
ausfag here. first heard about her on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.4518621]

>>4516570
>Rather, it's simply one effect that reducing State influence in the market brings. If the taxpayers are funding the infrastructure which brings your goods to market halfway across the country, you're going to be a smaller firm producing for local markets.
Lacking infrastructure will be highly detrimental to a lot of regions, but I agree that certain goods should be produced much more decentralisedly, esp. food. And I don't think you can excuse this with an evil state or cronyism. Most people wouldn't be too happy if you downgrade their infrastructure on purpose.

>Hayekian information flow problems
This sounds like Invisible Hand mythology. Could you please explain this, I have only a vague notion of this?

>Plus, as I noted earlier, without all of the State funded infrastructure, moving goods large distances is much less cost effective.
But here's the problem: most people really enjoy certain kind of goods that cannot be grown or produced in their area. And once again: if you think that major corporation that have already established foothold in certain regions will slow down there: this won't be the case.

>moving goods large distances is much less cost effective
Logistics don't cost that much though (yet). And if you provide a commodity that is highly sought after, most smaller units of administration will go to great lengths in order to gain access to your product (i.e. building infrastructure on their own).

>the large, stratified firm is unlikely to be the most profitable model of organization in a freed market.
Based on what?

[Anonymous No.4518635]

>>4516045

No one in America gives a damn about her except a minority of edgy Ivy League libertarian frat boys

[Anonymous No.4518706]

>>4518269
>This is the part that should be challenged/ changed then.

Well yes. We challenge it by saying that those people shouldn't have so much power over the rest of us in the first place, not by saying that they should be using it better.

[Anonymous No.4519596]

Literally never mentioned here. And I'm studying psychology and share a college with comparative literature students.

[Anonymous No.4519603]

mostly known for: it enspired my favourite videogame

[Anonymous No.4519745]

>>4516056
The only difference is that here they at least aren't xtian fundies.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20543_the-5-most-insanely-misunderstood-morals-famous-stories_p2.html

>That's right: Worried that your students are growing up believing the government has the right to coerce them into doing things? Why, better have the government coerce them into reading a book against government coercion! That'll do the trick!

>>4516251
>Nozick
Euphoric sperglord.

[Anonymous No.4519755]

Isn't Libertarianism like a perverted, American version of anarchism concerned mostly with freedom to oppress?

[Anonymous No.4519756]

>>4519745
What's wrong with Nozick?

[Anonymous No.4519757]

>>4519755
I normally think of it as Manchester School Liberalism being fed to ignorant white male young workers.

[Anonymous No.4520050]

>>4519603

[Anonymous No.4520063]

>>4516090
1: hasn't read the fountainhead
2: shouldn't make such gross generalisations

And, OP, I am Dutch and give a damn about Ayn Rand. In fact, the fountainhead is one of the most enjoyable books I've read so far.

[Anonymous No.4520076]

>>4520063

they aren't even gross generalizations actually, they're pretty straight up true

[Anonymous No.4520103]

>>4520063
>I am Dutch and give a damn about Ayn Rand.
There is your problem. No run along and go complain about muslims to your friends in Partij door de Vrijheid.

[Omar B !xeS.CIM.Jk No.4520128]

Just a bt more on topic. I discovered Rand (like most authors I love) in my father's books. My father, the Indian metallurgist working for Alcoa living in Jamaica.

[Anonymous No.4521600]

>>4516045
Qui ça?

[Anonymous No.4521709]

I´m from Sweden and i read The Fountainhead right now. Really like so far.

[Anonymous No.4521716]

>>4520128
we don't like ethnics on 4chan

[Anonymous No.4521918]

>>4516483
didn't u used to post on /pol/

[Anonymous No.4521940]

Not really

[Anonymous No.4521946]

>>4520076

Atlas shrugged is 9000 pages preaching of the evils of plutocracy and the merger of government and buisness interests. Point number 4 couldn't be more wrong.

[Anonymous No.4521952]

>>4521946
where does it preach plutocracy

i mean, sure, yes, it's against government interfering in business, but i would be hard pressed to see how it's not in favor of plutocracy, it's literally about the megawealthy and their campaign to make sure that society runs in exactly the way they want it to

[Anonymous No.4521958]

>>4521952
i mean where does it preach the dangers of plutocracy

it definitely preaches plutocracy, that's my point

[Anonymous No.4521963]

>>4521952

Mega rich people don't really control everything if they have no political influence. I always thought these "smoke filled back room deals" were a major connotation of the word plutocracy.

[Anonymous No.4523447]

>ITT: Biased views from all sides; Hurr durr muh problems are bigger than yours;

No wonder people compare politics to religion.

[エッチスケッチワンタ(...) !!q/bIopGeJFS No.4523459]

>>4516045
Am I the only one who stares at .gifs that don't move for five or more seconds

[Anonymous No.4523523]

>>4516045
haven't found a single student that knew about her or objectivism when I was still at uni

a lot of people were europoor versions of libertardians, tho

[Anonymous No.4523529]

>>4523523
(and i attended best business/economics school in my country)

[Anonymous No.4523539]

>>4521946
>preaching of the evils of plutocracy
no it doesn't, quite the opposite in fact