[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 24 KB, 384x384, das-kapital.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5335124 No.5335124[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What's the best edition of this?

>> No.5335186

>>5335124
penguin

>> No.5335253

the trashcan edition

>> No.5335272

>>5335253
>implying you have actually read the text

>> No.5335273

>>5335272
>implying you have

>> No.5335277

>>5335272
stop tripping

>> No.5335278

>>5335273
btfo

>> No.5335281

>>5335272
filtered

>> No.5335282

>>5335273
I have actually

>> No.5335288

>>5335282
you havent

stop tripping

>> No.5335289

tumblr dot com

>> No.5335298

>>5335288
Have you? because if you have we can discuss

>> No.5335304

>>5335298
stop tripping

>> No.5335307

>>5335288
Also 4chan x has a feature which makes everybody appear anon.

>> No.5335312

>>5335304
So your not interested in the book I assume?

>> No.5335314

>>5335281
>>5335288
>Being this autistic
You're the same NEET faggot who gives me shit. I hope you die you worthless little unloved piece of garbage.

>> No.5335328

>>5335124
O.P I can't give you any advice on additions but Harvey's companion text is good for clearing up misconception.

>> No.5335342

Take an economics course instead.

>> No.5335351

>>5335342
Not everyone has the money.

>> No.5335355

>>5335351
What is a HECS debt?

>> No.5335356

Hello OP here

I'm not especially interested in the Penguin edition because its a very long book and reading it in paperback seems like it will leave a lot of wear on the book itself. Ideally I'd like to find one that is either hardcover or at least bound with stiffer paper than the penguin one is.

Also do not really understand what most of the argument in this thread is about.

>> No.5335360

>>5335124
MEGA 6, I hope you're still young, you might live to actually read it.

>> No.5335397

>>5335124
penguin

>> No.5335399

>>5335355
Its about $200,000 these days, while access to Marxists.org is free.

>> No.5335401

>>5335356
So get a digital fucking edition of the penguin

>> No.5335402

>>5335399
What? I said HECS debt, oh and Marxian economics was debunked a long time ago

>> No.5335406

>>5335402
>oh and Marxian economics was debunked a long time ago
Nope. And that rebuttal is exactly the same grade of argument you advanced in defence.

Please don't Bohm Bawerk.

>> No.5335469

>>5335406
>Nope
Yes. Only Chicago school and Keynesian economics matter now.

>> No.5335471

>>5335469
that doesn't indicate that marxism is wrong, only that you can't use marxism to save capitalism in times of crisis. which sort of goes without saying.

>> No.5335475
File: 46 KB, 511x204, 070.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5335475

>>5335471
So it isn't a viable alternative? I agree.

>> No.5335480

>>5335475
not for the purpose for which society needs economic theory.
that being said, marx didn't formulate such a theory in the first place, but rather a critique of such theories.

>> No.5335486

>>5335480
>not for the purpose for which society needs economic theory.
>that being said, marx didn't formulate such a theory in the first place, but rather a critique of such theories.
We're talking about Marxian economics, it is already a set school of thought. It is just useless and has proven itself to be false. Besides, Marx was criticising mercantilism, like Adam Smith.

>> No.5335502

>>5335486
>it is already a set school of thought
actually, there's a number of approaches
>It is just useless
yeah, for the societal purpose of economic theory, everthing marx said is useless, as he wanted to subvert that purpose
>mercantilism, like Adam Smith.
argument discarded, you can't be this ignorant. i mean, you want to talk economics, shit like that doesn't fly.

>> No.5335510

>>5335502
>actually, there's a number of approaches
I said school of thought, m8.
>yeah, for the societal purpose of economic theory, everthing marx said is useless, as he wanted to subvert that purpose
No he didn't, he was an economist himself, he had his own proposals for economics. They were just pantsu on head retarded.
>argument discarded, you can't be this ignorant. i mean, you want to talk economics, shit like that doesn't fly.
I am I 'ignant'?

>> No.5335521

>>5335510
>No he didn't, he was an economist himself, he had his own proposals for economics.
you mean to say, you haven't read him, right?
>I am I 'ignant'?
wut?
anyway, your characterization of adam smith's theory as 'mercantilism' further proves that not only haven't you read marx, you also haven't read smith. in other words, it's almost a miracle that you know how to spell 'economics'.

>> No.5335532

>>5335521
>you mean to say, you haven't read him, right?
I have, though, and I've read other Marxians.
>your characterization of adam smith's theory as 'mercantilism' further proves that not only haven't you read marx
I said that Smith criticised mercantilism, you dick sucking retard.

>> No.5335556

>>5335532
>I have, though, and I've read other Marxians.
from the way you address the issue, it can't have been more than snippets your econimics professor gave you to discredit critics of his own inconsistent position.
>I said that Smith criticised mercantilism, you dick sucking retard.
Ya well, in that regard he'd be different from marx, as marx didn't criticize mercantilism as much as he criticized smith. so any way you spin your statement, it's nonsense.

>> No.5335560

>>5335556
>from the way you address the issue, it can't have been more than snippets your econimics professor gave you to discredit critics of his own inconsistent position.
No, I've read many Marxians.
>Ya well, in that regard he'd be different from marx, as marx didn't criticize mercantilism as much as he criticized smith. so any way you spin your statement, it's nonsense.
No, Marx just confused Smith and capitalism with mercantilism

>> No.5335565

ITT: people throw baseless assertions around without explaining themselves, then act smug about it like a bunch of fucking children.

>> No.5335574

>>5335560
>No, I've read many Marxians.
i don't believe you, because you say shit like:
>No, Marx just confused Smith and capitalism with mercantilism
which is so silly and wrong that you should spend some time sobbing in a corner.

>> No.5335576

>>5335574
>which is so silly and wrong that you should spend some time sobbing in a corner.
No it isn't. All of Marx's criticisms of capitalism were about mercantilism.

>> No.5335579

>>5335124

I personally used the Penguin edition, and I would recommend that to you. The three main volumes published by Penguin each have introductions by Ernest Mandel, and despite what you might think of him politically, his expertise with the subject matter is undeniable. You can always skip them, however.

The thing of primary interest. however, is what's back of the first volume, viz. a lengthy appendix entitled "Results of the Immediate Process of Production"--this is in excess of 100 pages of additional material on the subject from Marx's notes, and usually cannot be found outside of the collected works.

On the subject of different translations, Untermann's is available for free. I did a comparative reading of Penguin's (Ben Fowkes') Volume 1 and Untermann's translation of the same, and didn't detect anything particularly unreadable or lacking in the latter. The only thing I think you'd miss is the extra material in the Penguin edition (Introduction, notes, appendix, etc.).

Volume 1 of Untermann's translation can be found here:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/marx-capital-a-critique-of-political-economy-volume-i-the-process-of-capitalist-production

Volume 2 and 3 (Untermann) are also available from the Liberty Fund, entirely for free. They can be found elsewhere, of course, if you look around.

All of that business out of the way, I offer a few words of advice: Take many notes. Be on the lookout for passages which sum up chapters, and jot down for later anything that doesn't make immediate sense to you. In the first volume especially, there are initially confusing sections that make more sense the farther along you are. For aid in your first reading, turn to David Harvey's lectures on "Reading Capital," cited below:

https://www.youtube.com/user/readingcapital/videos

Good luck!

>> No.5335583

>>5335576

Source, please.

>> No.5335586

>>5335402
>Not reading Marxist literature as intellectual history.

kek

>> No.5335590

>>5335576
>All of Marx's criticisms of capitalism were about mercantilism.
the ride never ends. i don't even care anymore.
try to substantiate that claim, willya? i'll be there. or i won't.

>> No.5335592
File: 88 KB, 593x540, 1395823839193.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5335592

>>5335583
>>5335590
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Karl_Marx_s_economics.html?id=Syi6AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
>>5335586
>Marxian economics
>intellectual

>> No.5335597

>>5335592
Yes, Marxist theory has been the brainchild of intellectuals in Europe historically.

>> No.5335601

>>5335597
Oh, you mean pseudo-intellectuals. Like the kind who don't know anything about economics.

>> No.5335618

>>5335592

Perhaps I should have been more specific. When I said, "Source, please." I was hoping you would cite an instance in the primary sources, thus demonstrating at one stroke your knowledge of the material you criticize and showing Marx to be utterly confused on the topic of the liberal schools of economics in juxtaposition to the protectionist school commonly referred to as "Mercantilism"--both of which he contrasts in Volume 1.

Instead, you linked a secondary text on Google without bothering to cite your source even within this text.

Cite you source within the secondary text, and then please bother to link the criticism in the secondary text to material in the primary text.

Thank you.

>> No.5335624

>>5335592
>here's a book that says what i claim is true, i swear you guise
>guess you'll just have to buy it
>no, i won't give you a quote, burden of proof's on you now
nice try, faggot

>> No.5335638

>>5335124
I started reading the electronic version (epub) available on marxists.org. After I ran into some difficulty with understanding parts of it I watched a few videos by David Harvey. I noticed that some of the passages that he read in his lectures differed from the marxists.org translation. I got a hold of an electronic version (pdf) of the Penguin edition, which David Harvey seems to use, and I must say that I prefer it to the marxists.org version. The language seems to be a bit more direct, or straightforward, or something, not sure how to put it. It's not a big difference but it's enough that I will recommend getting the Penguin edition.

>> No.5335640

>>5335618
>>5335624
There's an ebook on google. Learn to read.

>> No.5335649

>>5335640

Friend, that's not how a citation works. Were you to attempt in any academic setting to cite sources by the volume instead of by chapter and verse, you would have well earned your bad grade.

Cite your source within the text, or your argument is void. In addition, failure to link secondary literature to primary literature constitutes a very bad argument, even should you choose to cite your secondary source. Please be prepared to link the two.

>> No.5335650

>>5335649
You obvioulsy haven't read criticisms. Why are you even here?

>> No.5335658

>>5335650

Cite your source, and we can discuss it. If you cannot cite your source, you admit your incapacity.

If you seek to criticize an author by asserting (1) that he has been debunked and (2) that he made glaring errors in his work, you will be expected to source both of those things.

I patiently await your citations.

>> No.5335676

>>5335658
Maybe you should learn the material. Why come into a thread about criticisms of Marxian 'economics' if you don't know any?

>> No.5335681

>>5335676
Not that anon but if someone criticized the existence of god or christianity me dropping the following link http://sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm would be a valid argument in your mind?

>> No.5335683

>>5335676
>a thread about criticisms of Marxian 'economics'
it really is a thread about editions of capital, mate
you're the one who brought up criticism, you're the one who has to deliver citations.

>> No.5335685

>>5335676
>Maybe you should learn the material.

With Marx, I am intimately familiar. Perhaps you should bother to read the material before attempting to discuss it, hmmm?

>Why come into a thread about criticisms of Marxian 'economics' if you don't know any?

The thread's subject concerns editions of "Capital," not criticisms of Marx. However, either would do, as no criticism of Marx has yet be proffered. I still await your citation.

>> No.5335686

>>5335681
Yes. Anyone who wants to debate Catholicism should know Summa Theologica.

>> No.5335691

>>5335685
If you're so familiar with Marx you would know that he was not only wrong about everything, but that the application of Marxian economics has been one failure after another.
>Perhaps you should bother to read the material before attempting to discuss it, hmmm?
I have read Marx and other Marxians.

>> No.5335697

>>5335691
>I have read Marx and other Marxians.
why, then, are you incapable of proving your assertion that marx solely criticized mercantilism?

>> No.5335702

>>5335697
He didn't, he just confused capitalism for mercantilism most of the time.

>> No.5335703

>>5335686
But what would happen if someone merely provided a link to a major athiest work? how would you resolve this impasse?

>> No.5335704

>>5335691
>If you're so familiar with Marx you would know that he was not only wrong about everything,

An assertion made without any basis to be dismissed out of hand. Try to make an argument that cannot be answered with a simple, "No."

>but that the application of Marxian economics has been one failure after another.

There is no positive Marxist economics. Marx's foundational work contains only criticism of contemporary positive economics of his day and an analysis of the "laws of motion" of capitalist production. Again, a simple, "No." would suffice to dismiss this little gem.

>I have read Marx and other Marxians.

Give me a short reading-list, so I can get an idea of your familiarity. If you would rather not bother, I will accept those citations instead.

If you fail to proffer those citations, I fear that I can no longer tolerate your wasting of my time.

>> No.5335706

>>5335691
>application of Marxian economics has been one failure after another.
Protip, the oligarchs who make insane amounts of money are applying Marxian economics. Looks like it's been a spectacular success. (Well, for them personally at least.)

>> No.5335712

>>5335703
They can critique that atheist 'work'
>>5335704
>There is no positive Marxist economics
http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/wwwfiles/archives/munro5/MARXECON.htm
>Give me a short reading-list
Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919)
Michel Aglietta (born 1938)
Jack Amariglio (born 1951)
Giovanni Arrighi (1937–2009)
Samir Amin (born 1931)
Hans-Georg Backhaus (born 1929)
Paul A. Baran (1910–1964)
Charles Bettelheim (1913–2006)
Thomas Bottomore (1920–1992)
Samuel Bowles (born 1939)
Martin Bronfenbrenner (1914–1997)
Maurice Dobb (1900–1976)
Jon Elster (born 1940)
Arghiri Emmanuel (1911–2001)
Duncan K. Foley (born 1942)
Andre Gunder Frank (1929–2005)
Herbert Gintis (born 1940)
Andrew Glyn (1943–2007)
David M. Gordon (1944–1996)
Makoto Itoh (born 1936)
Leif Johansen (1930-1982)
Michał Kalecki (1899–1970)
Leonid Kantorovich (1912–1986)
Andrew Kliman
David Laibman
Oskar Lange (1904–1965)
Alain Lipietz (born 1947)
Adolph Lowe (1893–1995)
Harry Magdoff (1913–2006)
Ernest Mandel (1923–1995)
Ronald L. Meek (1917–1978)
Michio Morishima (1923–2004)
Fred Moseley (born 1945)
Nobuo Okishio (1927–2003)
Prabhat Patnaik (born 1945)
Michael Piore (born 1940)
Raúl Prebisch (1901–1985)
Helmut Reichelt (born 1939)
Stephen Resnick (1938-2013)
John Roemer (born 1945)
Isaak Illich Rubin (1886–1937)
Alfredo Saad-Filho (born 1964)
Thomas T. Sekine (born 1933)
Anwar Shaikh (economist) (born 1945)
Piero Sraffa (1898–1983)
Josef Steindl (1912–1993)
Stanislav Strumilin (1877–1974)
Paul Sweezy (1910–2004)
Shigeto Tsuru (1912-2006)
Kozo Uno (1897–1977)
Immanuel Wallerstein (born 1930)
Richard D. Wolff (born 1942)

>> No.5335713

>>5335706
>Protip, the oligarchs who make insane amounts of money are applying Marxian economics
You mean state? And no it isn't a success. Fiat currency has killed the global economy.

>> No.5335716

>>5335702
ok, let me be kind and reasonable and ask:
what aspect of mercantilism did he falsely, yet more or less consistently apply to capitalism?

>> No.5335717

>>5335716
>what aspect of mercantilism did he falsely, yet more or less consistently apply to capitalism?
The necessity of a state/actions of a state.

>> No.5335718

>>5335712

Those are names, not books.

Further:

>"In the following, I have tried to make the basic principles of Marxian economics as clear and as concise as possible, though I certainly cannot pretend to be any authority on Marxism in general or on Marxian economics in particular. While I shall try to clarify any points related to the following, please do not ask me to defend any of the following principles of Marxian economics, since I do not believe in them. In particular, I do not accept the fundamental principles underlying the labour theory of value."

This in the introduction to your "citation" of a positive "Marxian" economics. The author dismissed himself as an authority, and lists (poorly) only the examples of the movement of capitalist production. This is, I am afraid, no positive economics.

You are welcome to try again. I have some remaining time.

>> No.5335720

>>5335712
Yes but how would you escape the link war? If no-one actually raises the points within those works?

Reformed chrisitanity = the true faith
http://www.godrules.net/library/calvin/calvin.htm
See the works of Calvin as proof.

>No Catholicism is the true faith see the works of Aquinas as proof

No reform is the true faith see Zwingli

ect

ect.

How can this end?
Cant you just drop a simple paragraph to to discuss with that other poster?

>> No.5335725

>>5335712
>dat article
>i'm no expert on marx, but i'm totally qualified to give you the fundamental principles of marxian economics
>dialecitcal materilism
>thesis, antithesis and synthesis
stopped reading, that guy is full of shit.
and that list is fucking worthless unless you're able to show us in what regard any of those people tried to formulate an economic theory in the sense in which eg keynesianism is an economic theory.

>> No.5335726

>>5335720
>Yes but how would you escape the link war?
Debates should be left to experts in academics who publish their peer reviewed works.

>> No.5335729

>>5335720
He isn't interested in a discussion. He is only interested in asserting his ideological stance--if he is not trolling.

>> No.5335730

>>5335718
>>5335725
They're all marxian economists. Also, can you dispute that any of those things are part of Marxian economics or do you just cry about it?

>> No.5335733

>>5335726
>Debates should be left to experts in academics who publish their peer reviewed works.

So it's, "Leave it up to the authorities!" is it? I can see how you would detest Marx.

(Assuming I have not confused you with another poster. Sorry if I have.)

>> No.5335735

>>5335717
>The necessity of a state/actions of a state.
riiight, because ever since the end of mercantilism, we have seen numerous examples of stateless capitalism, like...what are you taliking about?
>>5335726
>i'm unable do debate
>therefore, you guys shouldn't debate anything
sounds like a parody of sjw logic.

>> No.5335738

>>5335733
>So it's, "Leave it up to the authorities!"
No, leave it to those who can publish their works and have them reviewed by a number of people, not manchildrenon an obscure anime imageboard.
>>5335735
We've had free markets before, the market for many products is uninhibited in countries.
>>5335735
>>i'm unable do debate
>>therefore, you guys shouldn't debate anything
>sounds like a parody of sjw logic.
see above

>> No.5335743

>>5335730
>They're all marxian economists.

I asked you for a reading list to show your familiarly with the subject. You proffered a list of names instead. My interest is in what books you have read on the subject, so that I might ask you to use those with which you are familiar for citations.

>Also, can you dispute that any of those things are part of Marxian economics or do you just cry about it?

The fault is mine for not explaining the terms to you.

Criticism is negative by nature. It attempts to show flaws in its object. Marx's work is critical and not positive. This means that Marx does not make suggestion for economic practice, but only demonstrates the inner workings of capitalist production in order that he might show the positive economics of contemporary liberals, protectionists, or whatever brand to be flawed.

The continuation of Marxist economic criticism is nothing more than the continuing criticism of positive bourgeois economics, and not the assertion of competing positive theories.

You are coming dangerously close to wasting my time again.

>> No.5335744

>>5335743
>I asked you for a reading list to show your familiarly with the subject. You proffered a list of names instead.
Everything written by them.
>Criticism is negative by nature. It attempts to show flaws in its object. Marx's work is critical and not positive. This means that Marx does not make suggestion for economic practice, but only demonstrates the inner workings of capitalist production in order that he might show the positive economics of contemporary liberals, protectionists, or whatever brand to be flawed.
Again, we're talking about Marxian economics. Do you even know what that is? Kill yourself.

>> No.5335749

>>5335738
>No, leave it to those who can publish their works and have them reviewed by a number of people,

Yes, the intellectual authorities. Leave it up to them you say. It is all well and good to support academic excellence and the continuation of peer reviewed publication, but it is wholly another thing reprimand extra-academic discussion.

Given the quality of your conversational ability, however, I can see how you might come to think that extra-academic discussion is useless.

>not manchildrenon an obscure anime imageboard.

I encourage you to review your posts and then to review mine, and see to which the term childish could be most appropriately applied.

>> No.5335754

>>5335749
>Yes, the intellectual authorities
They're authorities for a reason, because they know what they're talking about. You clearly have an idealised view of Marxian economics despite never studying economics.
> encourage you to review your posts and then to review mine, and see to which the term childish could be most appropriately applied.
Yours are more than retarded.

>> No.5335759

>>5335744
>Everything written by them.

I very, very much doubt that. However, if true, you can easily proffer those citations I am waiting for.

>Again, we're talking about Marxian economics.

Which you said had failed in implementation. How could this be possible if there is no positive Marxist economics and nothing whatever to implement? Again, Marxism is critical and not positive.

>Kill yourself.

You are now wasting my time. With that, I say, "Adieu."

>> No.5335762

>>5335759
>However, if true, you can easily proffer those citations I am waiting for.
Use google
>How could this be possible if there is no positive Marxist economics and nothing whatever to implement?
Okay, you don't know what Marxian economics is.

>> No.5335768

>>5335762
>being this bad at debating
>2014

>> No.5335769

>>5335768
>not understanding /lit/ shitposting

>> No.5335772

>>5335768
>not knowing what Marxian economics is

>> No.5335787

>>5335124
the one that's tossed in the bin

>> No.5335788

>>5335738
>We've had free markets before, the market for many products is uninhibited in countries.
that is not the absence of the state, that is merely a specific regulatory regime, applied by the state.
>>5335772
>not knowing it's a strawman

>> No.5335793

>>5335788
>that is not the absence of the state, that is merely a specific regulatory regime
No, I said uninhibited markets.

>> No.5335796

>>5335793
yes, the state can decide to deregulate, or not to inhibit in the first place. that doesn't mean that it's gone, or that it isn't necessary.

>> No.5335802

>>5335796
How is the state necessary to exchange of good by individuals?

>> No.5335803

>>5335802
for starters, it guarantees the validity of contracts by enforcing the law.

>> No.5335812

>>5335803
Why is law necessary for the exchange of goods by individuals?

>> No.5335819

>>5335812
because without it, there is not even property in the sense of goods that can be exchanged. without the law and someone to enforce it, all the stuff you have right now becomes mine as soon as i obtain the force to take it. like, another dude and a gun.

>> No.5335822

>>5335819
Why do you think everyone is out to be violent? Are you a psycopath or something? Some people just like to make stuff and exchange it for other stuff, the state doesn't have to be involved at all.

>> No.5335829

>>5335822
>Why do you think everyone is out to be violent?
i don't think that is the case. what i do believe is that there are situations that will make about anyone turn to violence, say, when you and your family haven't eaten for a week.
>Some people just like to make stuff and exchange it for other stuff, the state doesn't have to be involved at all.
intersting how the same argument could be used for stateless communism:
Some people just like to make stuff and shre it with each other, the state doesn't have to be involved at all.

>> No.5335832

>>5335829
>i don't think that is the case. what i do believe is that there are situations that will make about anyone turn to violence, say, when you and your family haven't eaten for a week.
So? That doesn't prohibit the voluntary exchange by consenting indivduals of a particular good or service.

>intersting how the same argument could be used for stateless communism:
Some people just like to make stuff and shre it with each other, the state doesn't have to be involved at all.
The individual is coerced away from owning any capital in stateless communism, though.

>> No.5335839

>>5335822
Libertarian logic:
>The State doing this is evil!
>But when I do it to people who aren't capitalists it's okay!

>> No.5335840

>>5335839
First of all, I'm a liberal. Secondly, I don't act violently like the state, nor do I use force. All transactions are voluntary.

>> No.5335844

>>5335832
Yes, some people can probably make an unregulated market work.
But when you have more than 'some' people, which you always do, there are always the many people who will want to take the products and the means of production from those people by force.
In stateless capitalism, there is nothing protecting the capitalist from these theoretical ruffians except for himself and anyone he pays to protect him. There is even less than that protecting labor from the capitalist in this system, however.

>> No.5335851

>>5335844
>people who will want to take the products and the means of production from those people by force.
This is called the political means to wealth. It is what states do.
>In stateless capitalism
In all statelessness.

>> No.5335859

>>5335840
>Implying liberal means anything in 2014
>Implying all transactions are voluntary
If someone tells me he'll kill me if I don't give him all the money in my wallet, and I give him all the money in my wallet to prevent him from killing me, is that a voluntary transaction on my part? I don't think so, even if I may have known what I was doing when I willingly gave him the money. It was a transaction made under duress.
Maybe you don't act violently like the state but are you naive enough to think that no one will be violent in a system without a state? What happens when someone threatens your property? Will you defend it with violence if necessary or will you just let them steal or destroy it?

>> No.5335865

>>5335851
You missed the point. Why would you rather live in a world where the mob threatens your property, your life, and your profit than in a world where the state merely limits your profit?

>> No.5335871

>>5335859
What is the NAP? Only states use force. Anyone using force is a potential state.
>>5335865
It's about liberty. Besides, I'm an idealist.

>> No.5335893

>>5335871
>liberty
Overrated.
>I'm an idealist
You're the dumb kind of idealist.

>> No.5335898

>>5335893
Liberty isn't overrated. You sound like a NEET.
Why am I dumb? Because I think the best way for society to be organised is through voluntary transactions and individual freedom? You're just a control freak. You think everyone should conform to your ideas and opinions.
>>>/pol/

>> No.5335912

>>5335871
>Only states use force.
Since when?

>> No.5335922

>>5335912
Anyone using the political means to wealth is a potential state (see Oppenheimer's means to wealth)

>> No.5335931

>>5335898
Why isn't liberty overrated?
You're naive for thinking that a system like the one you've described can work. A system where the state controls everything is also flawed for similar reasons. No system functions quite as intended when it is implemented in reality. Why do you want to eliminate the state? What makes you think an anarchic economy would be better than a regulated one? Your liberty is not as important as the wellbeing of the millions of people who would suffer without a state to maintain a monopoly on violence and ensure that things work properly.

>> No.5335935

>>5335922
Regardless of whether or not these people constitute a state, what do you do when they come for your stuff? Do you defend your stuff with force or let them take it or destroy it??

>> No.5335942

>>5335931
I told you, I'm an idealist. I don't care how it works applied. Individual freedom is the best system because it gives personal responsibility to the individual and no one else to maintain. The state is a parasite, it depends on the economic means to wealth to survive.
If I had to apply a system in real life it would be Chicago School liberalism, like in Estonia.

>> No.5335946

>>5335935
We are all rational, autonomous moral agents, in an ideal world they would not violate the categorical imperative.

>> No.5335949

>>5335942
Why should the application of your model not matter to what you think of it? Why can't/shouldn't your ideals be realistic? Why shouldn't you think things through?

>> No.5335953

>>5335949
There's a difference between the ideal system and the most practical.

>> No.5335954

>>5335342
>Implying Marx has anything on a subject of economics, rather than on oppression abolishment.
People on /lit/ truly don't read what they criticize.

>> No.5335955

>>5335946
>In an ideal world they would not violate the categorical imperative
In the real world, people violate the categorical imperative all the time.

>> No.5335958

>>5335953
Why shouldn't *your* ideal system *be* the most practical?
Why is individual liberty and responsibility more important than things ideologies other than liberalism value?

>> No.5335960

>>5335955
And?

>> No.5335963

>>5335960
Why don't you care about the real world and what would happen if the things you believed should be implemented were implemented?

>> No.5335966

>>5335958
Because humanity is not ideal.
Individual freedom and responsibility is superior because it allows the individual to make their own decisions and requires no parental figure, like a state, to look after them. Those who wish to do well can and will with hard work, sound investments and intelligence. Meanwhile the undesirables are stuck at the bottom where they belong.

>> No.5335968

>>5335966
>Those who wish to do well can and will with hard work, sound investments and intelligence.
That isn't true.

>> No.5335972

>>5335963
I think Friedman's liberalism is the most practical.

>> No.5335976

>>5335968
Yes it is. How is it not?

>> No.5336001

>>5335966
Let me turn that side ways:
Individual freedom and responsibility is superior because it allows the individual to make their own decisions and requires no parental figure, like a state, to hold them back. Those who wish to amass wealth can and will with murder, larceny and ruthlessness. Meanwhile the honest people are stuck at the bottom where they belong.

Is this not true as well?

>> No.5336011

>>5336001
No, killing violates the NAP and/or categorical imperative. In an ideal society the smartest and hardest working would be at the top. The 'honest' (dumb people, blacks and unmarried women) would be at the bottom.

>> No.5336019

>>5336001
Also ruthlessness and greed aren't bad things.

>> No.5336026

>>5336011
Why do you keep acting like murder isn't something that happens?
>>5336019
So you don't care about human rights?

>> No.5336040

>>5336026
I'm talking about an ideal world, silly.
>>5336026
I don't think people should support failures.

>> No.5336045
File: 80 KB, 468x295, chocolate boy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5336045

Libertarianism and Marxism is the same thing in the end.

It's all just about people fully controlling their own labor and reaping the full value of their labor, yes?

>> No.5336051

>>5336011
>deontology
>belief in natural rights
>2014

>> No.5336062

>>5336051
>not those things
>2014

>> No.5336077

>>5336045
Not really, in Marxism you are not allowed to own capital, you are forced to share it with a bunch of degenerates.

>> No.5336085

lamest thread of the day trolololol

>> No.5336098

>>5335942

Tell me more about how dismantling the State would work well for the individual, when it would inevitably lead to corporations becoming even more powerful, totalitarian, and corrupt; they would essentially take "big" government's place as an oppressive regime, except it would be a lot worse.

>> No.5336102

>>5336077
>Not really, in Marxism you are not allowed to own capital, you are forced to share it with a bunch of degenerates.
Private capital ownership could be allowed if it is the result of your own labor, but individual production generally isn't competitive against collective production so it probably wouldn't be a big deal.

>> No.5336103

>>5336098

Worse, because they have absolutely no accountability to the populace. And could do whatever the fuck they want. Whereas in our "democracy" we have some semblance of control over the institutions of government. (In the U.S.)

>> No.5336104

>>5336098
>implying you can have monopolies without protectionism
>>>/economics101/

>> No.5336109

>>5336104

I didn't say anything about monopolies.

>> No.5336112

>>5336103
>Whereas in our "democracy" we have some semblance of control over the institutions of government.

Yeah, barely.

>> No.5336114

>>5336109
If a business doesn't have control of a market it cannot be totalitarian.

>> No.5336117

>>5336011
>No, killing violates the NAP
>>5336040
>I'm talking about an ideal world, silly.
I am used to being called a dreamer, an idealist, and a Utopian (all in the negative sense). But this NAP thing is too far out even for me.

What's the idea here? You assume a world without aggression and then build theories around that? And then you propose that we enact these theories in the 'real world', and if anybody attacks this NAP assumption you claim that you are really talking about an 'ideal world', not the 'real world'?

>> No.5336119

>>5336103
This semblance is doing more harm than good

>> No.5336124

>>5336117
When did I say anything about applying this to the real world?

>> No.5336127

>>5336124
I probably misunderstood you then. I was thinking of:
>>5335942
>If I had to apply a system in real life it would be Chicago School liberalism, like in Estonia.

>> No.5336129

>>5336040

Enjoying daddy's trust-fund?

>> No.5336130

>>5336129
Actually, I have my own business. If entitled leeches like you weren't such failures I wouldn't have the state in my wallet trying to support you.

>> No.5336132

>>5336130
Hey-hey-hey, whatever you are selling, it is likely that your customers browse 4chan as well. Do you talk like that to your customers too?

>> No.5336134

>>5336132
Welfare leeches can't afford it.

>> No.5336144

>>5336130
Why not go Galt and teach the moochers and leeches a lesson by depriving us of your value? Why do you continue to reward the state?

>> No.5336145

>>5336134
Your primary enemy is 'welfare leeches', and your paranoia makes you see that enemy everywhere. You assume your fellow 4chan posters are the enemy, when in fact you know nothing about them.

>> No.5336148

>>5336145
Only the very entitled oppose the free market. These people are invariably welfare leeches.

>> No.5336149

>>5336144
Because I don't want to.

>> No.5336155

>>5336148
>Only the very entitled oppose the free market.
Entitled to what? The value derived from other peoples labor? That sounds a lot like a private capital owner to me.

>> No.5336161

>>5336155
Of course the owner is entitled, they signed his contracts and use his capital. I'm referring to people who want the hard earned money of others for doing nothing. A business owner is the one who takes the biggest risk, the workers should be grateful.

>> No.5336185

>>5336161
The only reason anyone would ever agree to sign such a contract is because they do not own their own capital. If everyone owned capital then no one would ever place themselves voluntarily into such relationships and capitalism would cease to function.

>> No.5336192

>>5336185
No, if everyone owned capital the market would force some out due to competition.

>> No.5336196

/lit/ is sooo easy to troll

>> No.5336202
File: 9 KB, 622x434, t99.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5336202

>>5336192
Then not everyone would own capital. That's the point of capitalism.
The creation of a class of private capital owners who derive profit from capital, and a class of wage-slaves dependent on private capital owners to pay them wages from wage-labor.

>> No.5336211

>>5336202
Yes. Those that do well at the top, those that don't at the bottom.

>> No.5336215

>>5336211
So feudalism?

>> No.5336223

>>5336215
No, meritocracy.

>> No.5336232

>>5336223
Capitalism is not a meritocracy. Wages are not dictated based on merit. If you work harder it does not mean you are going to get paid more.

If you own a large amount of capital to begin with you are pretty much guaranteed to do good no matter how stupid you are considering capital ownership and management is generally separate. Capital owners do not run their own business they pay others wages to manage it for them.

>> No.5336244

>>5336232
Capitalism isn't solely "wages". You don't have to work for anyone

>> No.5336252

>>5336232
It's not about working hard, it's about using skills which are in demand to your advantage. Capital owners pay others to do small jobs for them, however without the capital investment into the market these people are jobless.

Capitalism rewards those who are market savvy and work well.

>> No.5336293

>>5335304
Stop hating

>> No.5336296

>>5335342
This much shit in one post

>> No.5336306

>>5335475
That pic.
I havent read Marx look at me!1!1

>> No.5336312

>>5336306
Why is it wrong?

>> No.5336314

Why is that every thread posted about Marx or Capital there are reactionaries coming in and fucking it all up? I dont remember it always being like this. Is it true /pol/ has come to /lit/?

>> No.5336333

>>5336312
Because its implying that marxism is just shitty garbage to feed to le teenagers into thinking utopian answer is best XD. Youre obviously confusing it with liberalism.

>> No.5336338
File: 40 KB, 395x578, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5336338

>>5336333
>marxism is just shitty garbage to feed to le teenagers into thinking utopian answer is best XD
I agree.

>> No.5336347
File: 57 KB, 474x604, 1398914919369.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5336347

>>5335713
>Fiat currency has killed the global economy

Are you twelve?

>> No.5336359

>>5336338
Well your mom would disagree. Yesterday i pounded her sweet ass, and when it was time for her orgasm (12 seconds in {she loves my cock}) i stopped the fucking and told her to say "Marx is best and my son's a twat" several times until she came.
Im black btw

>> No.5336375

>>5336359
You'd have to black to be stupid enough to think Marxism, which killed over 100 million people last century and crippled eastern Europe economically, is viable.

>> No.5336474

>>5336375
The correct figure is actually 100 trillion.

>> No.5336486

>>5336474
No, I go by the recorded figures

>> No.5336613

>>5336375
How many millions of people dead because of Capitalism?

>> No.5336619

>>5336613
I'll excuse the tu quoque and say not many at all. Since the fall of mercantilism and the rise of capitalism very few have been killed directly because of the voluntary exchange of goods on an open market.

>> No.5336631

>>5336619
So the millions dead of famines in the British Raj, the Russian Empire, everyone murdered by CIA-backed military dictators, all those who suffered and died in poverty, they don't matter? Because of your imaginary 'free market'?

>> No.5336644

>>5336631
British rule in India was, for the most part, mercantilist. What about the Russian Empire specifically? The CIA is a state agency, not a free enterprise. If you've found a way to stop poverty I'm all ears, but more people did in the USSR through poverty than in any capitalist nation.

>> No.5336649

>>5336644
>but more people did in the USSR through poverty than in any capitalist nation.

See: all of Africa

>> No.5336660

>>5336644
I mean the famines in the Russian empire, which also killed millions. But they weren't communists yet so I guess that was fine.
>more people did in the USSR through poverty than in any capitalist nation.
[citation needed]

>> No.5336670

>>5335124
If you really want to read a boring book on economy yeah, sure read Das Kapital.
But if you want to read Marx's critique of Capitalism and how he formed that, I'd recommend reading Grundrisse instead.
It's way more "ideological" than Das kapital.

>> No.5336671

>>5336649
What? Those communist states and dictatorships? The only capitalist nations were destroyed by interference in the market in the form of aid. Decidedly un-capitalist.
>>5336660
Which famines, precisely?
I'll just cite an event, the collectivisation of Ukrainian farmers under Stalin, forcing them into poverty and starvation.

>> No.5336676

>>5336671
>The only capitalist nations were destroyed by interference in the market in the form of aid. Decidedly un-capitalist.
What is Argentina and Chile?

>> No.5336680
File: 75 KB, 983x1013, 1400037088187.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5336680

>>5336676
>Argentina
>Chile
>Africa

>> No.5336688

>>5336680
I'm not even the guy who you argued with. I just felt the need to point out, that there were in fact countries destroyed by Capitalism.
I could add Greece to the list as well, but it's more complicated.

>> No.5336694

>>5336676
Chile is the most successful nation in Latin America, what are you on about?

>> No.5336699

>>5336671
>Which famines, precisely?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1891%E2%80%9392
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_famine_of_1866%E2%80%9368

>> No.5336724

>>5336699
Weather, not capitalism caused that one.

Central banking, which is more a socialist policy and has been derided by Austrian and Chicago school economists, and weather are to blame for that.

>> No.5336732

>>5336694
Maybe now, but not under Pinochet.

>> No.5336733

>>5336724
> Weather, not capitalism caused that one.
"The government of the Grand Duchy of Finland was ill-equipped to handle a crisis of such magnitude. There was no money readily available to import food from largely monopolized Central European markets, and the government was slow to recognize the severity of the situation. Finance minister Johan Vilhelm Snellman, in particular, did not want to borrow, lest Finland's recently introduced currency, the Finnish markka, be weakened because of the very high interest rates that the Rothschild bank of Frankfurt asked for."
"The main blame was laid at the government, which was discredited by the famine. It refused to use that word: golod, they called it a poor harvest, neurozhai, and stopped the papers reporting on it.[1] The main reason the blame fell on the government was that grain exports were not banned till mid-August and merchants had a month's warning so they could quickly export their reserves. Minister of Finance Ivan Vyshnegradsky even opposed this late ban.[2] He was seen as the main cause of the disaster as it was his policy to raise consumer taxes to force peasants to sell more grain."

>> No.5336746

>>5336724
So, when a capitalist state fails to prevent a famine even when it has tools to do such (notice how rest of east Europe lacked famines during same years), weather can be blamed in a reductive manner? But when Stalinist state does it, its a genocide?

>> No.5336751

>>5336644
USSR was Marxist-Leninist, what people currently define as socialist, not communist.
Famines in USSR could have been prevented and they were not caused by economic ideology the state adhered, but rather by hostile relations with foreign states and lack of interest in technologies the Green Revolution provided among both popular public and government.
Jesus, it is about the thunderer time I a hearing this argument and it just signifies that a person who participates in the argument is either uneducated or biased.

>> No.5336755

>>5336733
Yes, central banking. A system derided by Austrian and Chicago school economists.
>>5336746
The genocide of Ukrainian farmers was no caused by weather, it was caused by forced collectivisation.

>> No.5336761

>>5336751
It was an attempt at the application of Marxism. It failed numerous times to be applied, it should be disregarded.

>> No.5336781

>>5336755
> The genocide of Ukrainian farmers was no caused by weather, it was caused by forced collectivisation.
And Finnish genocide was caused by capitalism market that failed to provide enough capital for reasonable prices to buy the food for the Finnish people, which led to the death of 150 000 innocent blond aryan laissez faire farmers.

One could argue though that central banking isn't related to this at all since Finland, nor Germany, nor Russia had central banks in 1860s. And that Holodomor was caused by counter-revolutionary elements in Ukraine resisting the state.

>> No.5336794

>>5336761
Marxism-Leninism is disregarded by most communist movements in first world (in favor of Eurocommunism and its childs) and in third world (in favor of Maoism).

Although how can one judge whether Marxist-Leninism failed or not? Based on neo-liberal checklist?

>> No.5336811

>>5336781
>>5336781
Was caused by international banking rather than through individual wealth. State interference is more of a socialist policy.
>>5336794
I'd discredit it by the death and ruin it caused.

>> No.5336833

>>5336781
How is it a failure of the market that there was not enough ownership of capital? Ownership of capital is up to the consumer.

>> No.5336864

>>5336649
The greatest famines of Africa occurred in communist countries like Derg ruled Ethiopia and Siad Barre ruled Somalia.

>> No.5336867

>>5336811
> How is it a failure of the market that there was not enough ownership of capital?
Failure in a sense that it caused 150 000 deaths. Not failure as in an economic failure by market. Its just an example on how unchecked market can cause massive pain and suffering.

>>5336811
> I'd discredit it by the death and ruin it caused.
Let's do that for all laissez faire capitalist systems as well.

>> No.5336905

I really don't see how one can be a moral person and believe that 'free' markets have done no wrongs in this world.

>> No.5336908

>>5336867
It was caused by the suspension of the free market in government hands. If you give the government the wealth you sacrifice your autonomy.

>> No.5336930

You capitalists do realize that communism doesn't require a big state to oversee it, right? Communism as Marx envisioned it is basically anarchism.

>> No.5336938

>>5336930
>implying you can plan an economy without a coercive force (a state)

>> No.5337569

>>5336908
Was the decline and fall of the Roman Empire caused by the suspension of the free market?

>> No.5337576

>>5336938
>Implying Marx's vision of communism entailed anything beyond industrialized collectivism with an enlightened post-Christian philosophy of equality and respect for dignity driving it

Also, who ITT would be OK with living in a Communist society overseen by Iain M. Banks-style artificial intelligences? I think I'd be OK with a bunch of omniscient supercomputers running my world for me and ensuring my safety and the availability to every citizen of the Culture of whatever material resources or spiritual comforts I could hope for.

>> No.5337669

>>5337569
No, that was caused by crusaders and Muslims.
>>5337576
I would not be okay with that. But you are the phlegmatic, you wish to rely on others. You are orally fixated.

>> No.5337722

>>5337669
Why wouldn't you want that? If the computers functioned correctly then you would have a more efficient, wealthy, and egalitarian society than you would under capitalism.

>> No.5337725

>>5337669
What ethical system do you follow, exactly? Some kind of idiot stoicism?

>> No.5337730
File: 27 KB, 527x409, 48d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5337730

>>5337669
>caused by crusaders and Muslims.

>> No.5337978

>>5336148
>Only the very entitled oppose the free market. These people are invariably welfare leeches.
You are not going to believe this, but some of us actually believe in cooperation and in helping each other. It's crazy. Some of us also believe that it is wrong to exploit others. Total madness.

>>5336161
>I'm referring to people who want the hard earned money of others for doing nothing.
This problem is, in my opinion, very much secondary to the greed of way too many employers and investors.
>the workers should be grateful
That's just tasteless.

>>5336252
>Capital owners pay others to do small jobs for them, however without the capital investment into the market these people are jobless.
That's not the entire story, though. It's not the investment that creates demand. The demand is still there even without the investment of the capitalist. The capitalist forces himself in between the customer (demand) and the worker (supply). The capitalist is able to do this due to his privileged status which >>5336232 points out is not necessarily earned through merits. I think this 'buy low, sell high'-mentality is dishonest and distasteful. It's a system that, I think, quickly devolves into people swindling each other to get ahead.

>> No.5338004

>>5336161
>A business owner is the one who takes the biggest risk
The business owner will try to pass any loss onto workers by lowering their wages or intensifying their work. This means that the workers are in fact left with the risk.

>> No.5338031

>>5336252
>Capitalism rewards those who are market savvy and work well*.
>*) Under assumption of the non-aggression principle