/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6689336]

What literature should I read if I'm interested in socialism?

[Anonymous No.6689343]

Robert Nozick

[Anonymous No.6689349]

The Bible tbh

[Anonymous No.6689354]

anything that gets positive vibes from academia tbh

[Anonymous No.6689356]

>>6689336
Charles Bukowski

[Anonymous No.6689370]

shitposts over what do I read guys

[Anonymous No.6689372]

>>6689370
marx you twat

[Anonymous No.6689406]

Read the communist manifesto, of course.

And then I'd recommend "Economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth" by Mises.
And both Menger's and Bohm Bawerk's critic in the labour theory of value.

After that you either are pro or against socialism, in both ways eventually you'll find more works.

These readings are enough to get a initial grasp on the subject.
After that if you still want to read socialism go read Marx, Engels, Gramsci, something about Frankfurt school and such.

Socialism won't work, so don't read it.
If you want a better economic system go to Distributism! Read Chesterton and Belloc!

[Anonymous No.6689428]

>>6689336
Gotchu nigga

[Anonymous No.6689439]

>>6689406
>read one leaflet that is pro-socialist
>then read a whole book that is critical of ideas you don't know about, because you only read a leaflet

Cool advice

[Anonymous No.6689447]

>>6689406
>Read the communist manifesto, of course.
Don't read the manifesto. People grossly misread it.

Theses on Feuerbach, Socialism: Utopian & Scientific, Wages Price and Profit, Critique of the Gotha programme.

[Anonymous No.6689449]

>>6689428
OK but add Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.6689454]

>>6689449
Kolakowski is the equivalent of taking 3 years of party courses.

[Anonymous No.6690097]

read everything George Orwell wrote.

by the time you are finished you should be past your angry teens/earlyTwentySomethings, and you may recognise Socialism for what it is.

[Anonymous No.6690102]

>>6689447
>Don't read the manifesto. People grossly misread it.

then it should have been written in a way that PEOPLE COULDN'T MISREAD IT. fail.

it's the god damned bible all over again.

[Anonymous No.6690107]

>>6689449
>Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism
That guy actually wrote that Marcuse wanted to send natural scientists to the gulag. I somewhat doubt he's accurate on anything else, based on that.

[Anonymous No.6690113]

>>6690097
>read this socialist to cure you of socialism

[Anonymous No.6690196]

I'm trying to get a good non-marxist left-wing thought guide going. Suggestions?

Heidegger:
Being and Time
The Question Concerning Technology
Letter on Humanism

Levinas:
Totality and Infinity
Entre Nous

Arendt:
The Human Condition

Schmitt:
Concept of the Political
Political Theology

Deleuze:
Nietzsche and Philosophy
Spinoza: Practical Philosophy
Anti-Oedipus
A Thousand Plateaus

Foucault:
Discipline and Punish
History of Sexuality: Vol. 1
Society Must Be Defended/Security, Territory, Population/The Birth of Biopolitics

Agamben:
The Coming Community
Homo Sacer
State of Exception
The Kingdom and the Glory

Tiqqun/The Invisible Committee:
Introduction to Civil War
The Coming Insurrection
To Our Friends

[Anonymous No.6690233]

>>6690196
All of anarchism

[Anonymous No.6690249]

>>6690233
I wanted to stick with contemporary and modern works. So no Kropotkin, Bakunin, and shit.

American anarchism might be good to add. I'm not a particular fan, but Zerzan and Bookchin and Bob Black were at least relevant for a good while. I like some Fredy Perlman too.

Any other suggestions?

[Anonymous No.6690284]

>>6690249
Chomsky is okay. Orwell's Homage to Catalonia might as well be anarchist, but I don't know if that's too old for you.

[Anonymous No.6690317]

>>6689336
You don't.

[Anonymous No.6690516]

>>6690196
the whole post-Keynesian wing of economic thought is great - Keynes, Minsky, Lerner, Kalecki, Keen, Wray, Kelton, Mosler

[Anonymous No.6691346]

>>6690196
>Heidegger, Arendt, and Schmitt
>left-wing

Please get the fuck out of here

[Anonymous No.6691536]

>>6690233
Is there like a picture \lit\ anarchist starter kit? I like those pictures.

[Anonymous No.6691550]

>>6689336

[Anonymous No.6691562]

>>6691346
It is a common misconception that Arendt is left wing, even I thought it because she was a jewish woman, but if you actually read his works she turns out to be simply an antiauthoritarian

[Anonymous No.6691566]

>>6689336
The reddit posts you encounter after you fuck off back there.

[Anonymous No.6691824]

>>6690107
Oh but he was very much right on that.

[Anonymous No.6691843]

>>6689428
Why no intersectional feminism? It's not a class struggle distraction.

[Anonymous No.6691853]

>>6691346
this

[Anonymous No.6692908]

>>6689428
I fixed it.

[Anonymous No.6692933]

>>6689336
The Iron Heel

it predicted the future better than 1984

>>6689354
>academia
>socialist
Please. The Academy™ is a few privatizations away from becoming a corporation

[Anonymous No.6692947]

>>6692908
>>>/anywhereelse/

[Anonymous No.6692949]

>>6689336

>What literature should I read if I'm interested in socialism?

Probably "How to kill myself in 2 easy steps" or something to that effect.

[Anonymous No.6692950]

>>6692908
Needs more Chris Hedges. Needs Anarchism and Other Essays by Goldman. And what's wrong with the Grapes of Wrath?

[Anonymous No.6693010]

>>6691562
She was a SocDem

>>6690196
>Foucault
>left

[Anonymous No.6693022]

>>6690249
>Zerzan
>Bob Black
>Fredy Perlman

[Anonymous No.6693024]

>>6692950
>Being this historically illiterate
>>6692947
This guy got it. How intense is your butthurt?

[Anonymous No.6693032]

>>6689336
Anything suicidal, or that would likely end in your committing suicide.

[Anonymous No.6693047]

>>6689406
Why Mises, an Austrian economist? He's hardly representative of modern capitalism - praxeology is widely regarded as wank.

OP, for a beginning into non-Marxist analysis of capitalism, I recommend looking into Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, Keynes, Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman.

>If you want a better economic system go to Distributism!

Oh, that explains it.

[Anonymous No.6693062]

>>6692949
>>6692947
>>6693032
triggered?

[Anonymous No.6693089]

>>6692933
>>academia
>>socialist
>Please. The Academy™ is a few privatizations away from becoming a corporation
Polls asking college professors in america their political affiliation showed that the vast majority of them were leftists, the highest proportion being found in the humanities department and the lowest proportion being found in the economics department (which is logical, since anyone with a grasp on economics should see through commie bullshit)

[Anonymous No.6693096]

>>6693089
>(some) professors' ideas are more important than funding and institutional structure

Let me guess, are the cultural Marxists behind it all? It's not 1968 anymore.

[Anonymous No.6693123]

>>6691843
Lindsey German: Theories of Patriarchy << good
probably:
-Material Girls
-Sex Class and Socialism.
i didn't read them tbh
>>6692950
and perhaps some of
Henri Lefebvre
Chris Harman
John Molyneux
Tony Cliff

[Anonymous No.6693156]

>>6693096
>Let me guess, are the cultural Marxists behind it all?
Many of the faculty are cultural marxists

>It's not 1968 anymore.
Indeed it isn't. The contrarian leftist students of 1968 are today's faculty, hence leftism is mainstream.

[Anonymous No.6693157]

>>6691824
No, he absolutely wasn't. You have to be completely retarded to interpret the Frankfurt School stance of "you can't do sociology like a natural science, because 'neutrality' implies a particular political agenda" to "kill everyone who dares do natural science!!".

[Anonymous No.6693159]

>>6693089
College professors political affiliation doesn't mean much because they do not control the university. That is why you have the textbook racket where students are required buy a slightly different edition of the same book every year, pay $39.99 + tip for a journal article, have the false promises of being guaranteed a job after you degree, all the for profit colleges popping up to get in on that sweet money train, etc.

[Anonymous No.6693175]

>>6689336
4chan archives

[Anonymous No.6693248]

>>6693159
>College professors political affiliation doesn't mean much because they do not control the university.
What?

It means they control the curriculum.

We're not talking about tution fees, but about the popularity of socialism in academic circles.

[Anonymous No.6693279]

>>6693248
>It means they control the curriculum.
They don't fully control that either as the powers that be may be required them to spend spend less time teaching and more time pumping out books or finding other ways to secure more grants, their courses may have to be "adjusted" to be more in line with the textbooks they are buying, they may close down classes/courses/programs for whatever reason, regulate their teaching time and what they teach, etc.

[Anonymous No.6693300]

>>6693279
>the powers that be
Don't say that, makes you sound like a retard.

>may be required them to spend spend less time teaching and more time pumping out books or finding other ways to secure more grants, their courses may have to be "adjusted" to be more in line with the textbooks they are buying, they may close down classes/courses/programs for whatever reason, regulate their teaching time and what they teach, etc.
Yes, but you certainly agree that teachers get to decide the majority curriculum and not the evil wall street banker

[Anonymous No.6693369]

>>6693300
Whats wrong with that phrase?

The right's advantage in academia is they focus on for lack of a better term "more important" stuff. Things like economics, finance, and even business management have a great affect on the world. Unlike the left they are not limited to writing critiques because they are actually out there in the world doing shit and advising important people. The curriculum created the "evil wall street banker" that goes into a business school/department is way more important than something like postcolonialism. Whats strange about this situation is people joke all the time about how worthless certain humanities degrees are yet people act like those who teach such degrees are the most powerful people in a academia.

[Anonymous No.6693378]

>>6692908
what's the matter with grapes of wrath?
it's a fine novel and leftist

[Anonymous No.6693388]

>>6689454
how so?

[Anonymous No.6693975]

>>6693047

You slipped Krugman in there. Nicely done. He's not quite a neosocialist himself, but he's in that camp. I'd read Keynes or Galbraith instead if you want a left-wing free market scholar. Keynes is positively brilliant though obviously people still argue if he was right.

Free marketers like Friedman and Mises are excellent. Hayek is popular for a reason. Frank Knight's Risk Uncertainty and Profit is very good if you can slog through it.

Lenin's the state and revolution is very good for socialist work. But really you want to go back to Marx. There's a reason his followers more than a century later still focus on him directly.

No offense, but /lit/ is pretty much the last place to read for advice on economics. The biggest thing you need to understand economics- free market or socialist- is mathematics. Without a strong math background, you're just parrotting theories based on who looks more authoritative on TV

[Anonymous No.6693987]

>>6693096

Professor here. The vast majority of non- economics faculty are either liberal or socialist. A sprinkling of libertarians, and virtually no conservatives. Haidt's work in psychology provides peer-reviewed statistical evidence if you need it.

That's not just ideology. It's also an artifact of the fact that pure science was nationalized in the 40's, and even private universities are mostly federally funded through student loans and federal grants. Where you stand depends on where you sit. >>6693089

The people denying that university faculties are far-left are mostly the faculty themselves. Then you start asking them for the positions they consider politically "centrist".

[Anonymous No.6693998]

>>6693975
There is honestly very little mathematics in economics proper - there's a lot in statistics - which much of modern economics ends up being.

But you could have as good as possible of an understanding of the modern economy without spending any time on the rigorous econometrics-type stuff - it just doesn't really correspond to anything in the real world.

For a modern Keynesian, I would recommend reading Minsky, Steve Waldman, or Mike Konczal over Krugman or Galbraith. (Unless you meant Galbraith's son? He's actually better than his father.)

[Anonymous No.6694964]

>>6693156
>cultural Marxists

Back to your containment board

[Anonymous No.6694975]

>>6689428
Speaking of zizek, is Tragedy or Object better?

[Anonymous No.6694977]

>>6689406
>If you want a better economic system go to Distributism! Read Chesterton and Belloc!

im fucking dying please stop
im a catholic ok. but distributism is petit-bourgeois capitalism lmao

[Anonymous No.6695177]

>>6689336
The Iron Heel by Jack London.

[Anonymous No.6695305]

>>6690113

orwell wasn't a socialist, you fuckstain.

[Anonymous No.6695318]

>>6695305
He said he was in Homage to Catalonia

[Anonymous No.6695345]

>>6695305
Retard detected

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6695370]

>>6695305
He was a democratic socialist.

[Anonymous No.6695666]

Adam Smith's the Wealth of Nations.

Understand the thing your political viewpoint rejects. The presence of the negative defines the positive, as the hollow of the pot assigns its purpose.

[Anonymous No.6695680]

>>6695666
there's a bunch of stuff in Wealth of Nations that you could use to justify calling Smith a socialist by modern standards

[Anonymous No.6695681]

>>6695680
Please give an example

[Anonymous No.6695711]

>>6690196
Foucault may have distanced himself from marxism, but he was still a radical materialist in the same vein.

[Anonymous No.6695735]

>>6695681
don't have my marked-up copy with me but here are some other people addressing the issue:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/01/24/revisiting-adam-smith/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/20121214131829224157.html
http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2012/05/if-obama-is-socialist-so-was-adam-smith.html
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/adam-smith-socialist/

[Anonymous No.6695747]

>I'm interested in socialism

[Anonymous No.6695760]

>>6689336
This is centered more towards British society, but also has a global outlook.

[Anonymous No.6695768]

>>6695735
You seem to be mistaking 'socialism' with concern for poor people. Adam Smith never advocates socialised ownership of the means of production, and it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Phillipson suggests that he is a socialist.

For what it's worth, Phillipson's is an interesting and well informed intellectual biography, but it isn't a major work in the field. I studied Smith as an undergraduate in history at Cambridge and although these kind of revisionist accounts are entertaining for people with a surface interest in the history of ideas, they are absolutely laughable to anybody who is familiar with Smith's works and the scholarly literature. Phillipson would probably be disgusted by the notion that Smith is a socialist. The single most important modern reading of Smith, Istvan Hont's in Jealousy of Trade, shows The Wealth of Nations to be a deeply conservative - maybe even proto-Burkean, if we're to entertain anachronism - critique of the physiocratic economic rationalism that so obvious presaged the socialist thought of the nineteenth century.

[Anonymous No.6695778]

>>6695768
>a socialist by modern standards
is what I wrote. I do not mean "workers control the means of production" - Smith is clearly not that. The point is that modern conservatives would balk at some of Smith's ideas as "socialist"

[Anonymous No.6695779]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSLwbxRBG7k

[Anonymous No.6695813]

>>6693369
The right you're talking about is the neoliberal right which is probably the least important part of the right. They are the right's SJWs.

[Anonymous No.6695821]

>>6694975
I've not yet read Tragedy, but Sublime Object of Ideology is good and Zizek thinks its one of his best books.

[Anonymous No.6696044]

>>6693159
>>6693248
>>6693279
>>6693369

OK this anon is a total idiot. Professor here. There is no "right wing" in academia, except for a few isolated enclaves at a few universities (GMU's econ dept, for example).

I write my own syllabi, select my own textbooks, and while we have curriculum requirements, how we achieve them is my own business. Nobody tells me what text to buy; the book store has to hustle to keep track of what we select. Publisher reps call and stop by constantly trying to get me to adopt their books.

The administration is, if anything, even more left-wing than the faculty. Administrators select themselves, with some help from the board of regents, from the faculty. Working with the faculty Senate, they make all the decisions that matter. Trustees and Boards of Regents struggle to exert influence on universities. Universities belong mostly to the administrators (former faculty) and current faculty. Everything else revolves around them.

Economics tends to have a few conservatives, some libertarians, but is mostly liberal. Business schools are traditionally conservative, but that's been shifting for almost 20 years now. Conservative faculty stick together and are mostly sociallly isolated from everryone else. The other place you're likely to find any conservatives is law schools. All other majors are divided between the moderate Left and the radical Left.

Your mistake is that you're saying, "universities are maximizing their budgets at the expense of students", then saying "that's evil" and "conservatives are evil", therefore "universities must be conservative". That's a logical fallacy and also provably not true. Whatever you think about conservatives, they have almost no footprint in academia.

[Anonymous No.6696060]

>>6693998

For any definition of "economics proper" that includes what academics in economics actually do, it's heavily mathematical.

Many econ depts recruit engineers over their own undergrads into phd programs. You'll need math up through linear algebra and differential equations to handle doing real work in economics-- which feeds right into econometrics.

Professional working economists (and their cousins in Business Schools) use heavy math as well. Even marketing is getting heavy in mathematics these days.

It's possible to get an undergrad or even masters in "economics" with not much math, but that's hardly "economics proper". It's a dumbed down political philosophy version that neither professionals nor academics take seriously. The majors are offered because the policy departments ask for it and students love these majors so it keeps the course subscriptions up.

[Anonymous No.6696062]

>>6696044
Have you ever been contacted by a jew who tried to make you race-bait in exchange for snuff party invites?

[Anonymous No.6696181]

>>6689336
Read "Revolt against the modern world"
"Man amongst the ruins"
And "ride the tiger"

[Anonymous No.6696218]

>>6689406
>If you want a better economic system go to Distributism! Read Chesterton and Belloc!

Distributism is comfy as fuck

[Anonymous No.6696226]

>>6696218
If you're a NEET it must be

[Anonymous No.6696240]

>>6696226
NEETs are a side product of an overcooked capitalist economy

[Anonymous No.6696242]

>>6689336

[Anonymous No.6696245]

>>6689343
most underrated shitpost on 4chan atm

[Anonymous No.6696246]

>>6692933
>>>6689354 #
>>academia
>>socialist
>Please. The Academy™ is a few privatizations away from becoming a corporation

In other words, it's socialist now, but if privatized would be capitalist. Correct. That's true of any socialized institution.

If colleges were privatized, they'd provide a better product for a lower price. Currently, even so-called private colleges and for-profit institutions are almost entirely funded by the government through student loans and grants that make up most of a typical students' tuition, plus government research grants for faculty. College tuitions have gone up by more than a thousand percent since the late 70's. Far more than the price of healthcare. Nearly all of that has gone into administrative overhead and campus services rather than teaching. Much like farm subsidies, the money is sent to a politically influential constituency (parents) but then appropriated by a powerful institution (universities). Raise loans 5% and like magic schools raise their tuitions to consume it all.

You hate corporations and see university abuses and think therefore universities might as well BE corps, right? Turn it around. The modern american university is about as close to a socialist paradise as you can get in a democracy: a five year resort with fun activities, parties, and political indoctrination sessions. You're saying "it doesn't work, therefore it's capitalist", and I reply, "it's doesn't work BECAUSE it's socialist."

[Anonymous No.6696257]

>>6689336
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

[Anonymous No.6696300]

>>6689428
Needs some evaluative history books analysing and defending against the perceived failure of socialism since 1917

[Anonymous No.6696309]

>>6696240
Yes and no
Capitalism doesn't necessarily cause it or anything, it merely perpetuates what is already symptomatic in society.
In the past if you weren't looking for work or in work then socially you were an outcast.
What has changed now is our tolerance of it and our making many workers economically irrelevant through welfare schemes.

[Anonymous No.6696399]

>>6696300

The typical answer is, "That's wasn't socialism." Or "the reason socialism has never worked is that it's never been tried".

Another approach is soft socialism, where you take the view that whatever system you happen to be in is basically good but isn't QUITE socialist enough. As your society moves to the Left, move your goals to the left as well. The idea is that most of the horrors of socialism aren't inherent in the ideology itself but in the social transition to it. So if you make that transition invisible and painless you'll get your ideal society (eventually) without the violence, secret police, emergence of "bad leaders", and eventually mass killings.

The revolutionary replies that these things are inevitable and your best option is to simply get it over with. Much of it boils down to this: do you see Lenin, Mao and their ilk as "real" socialists who failed, or opportunists who rode the wave to power and then betrayed the One True Ideology?

It's the classic Bolsheviks vs Mensheviks debate (if you use Firefox, try typing Menshevik and see what the suggested change is). Historically, Mensheviks are the friendly democratic socialist face that wins popular approval to overthrow the current leaders, and then Bolsheviks are the ruthless and violent ones who use the chaos to take over. It's not even limited to socialism; look how the Arab Spring played out.

[Anonymous No.6696478]

>>6691562
Just because she didn't like Gulags doesnt mean she wasn't left-wing.

[Anonymous No.6696498]

>>6689336
Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.6696703]

>>6696399
The problem with democratic socialism however is the same as with democratic anything, ideals are diluted and compromises have to be made else one will never achieve popular acclaim. As well many socialists go for the populist route then once elected use their power in desiderata u democratic ways.

Either way socialism does not exist independently in any western country, at most you have capitalist market systems which use the excess profit to build insular welfare systems in order to bolster citizens.

[Anonymous No.6696710]

>>6691562
Being left wing doesn't mean they must be anti-authoritarian

[Anonymous No.6696805]

>>6696703
>The problem with democratic socialism however is the same as with democratic anything, ideals are diluted and compromises have to be made

Exactly. Hence the argument by the militants that democracy is ultimately incompatible with socialism, or at least must be deferred to some future time after society and human nature have been changed and all alternatives irrevocably eliminated.

Critics often claim that socialists don't recognize that their ideals aren't compatible with human nature, but that's not at all true. Every socialist revolution (including offshoots like the fascists) has recognized this problem.

The response is to develop institutions which destroy the corrupt, pre-existing bourgeois culture and replace it with revolutionary culture. The New Soviet Man is the most obvious example, but it's the idea behind the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, the Cultural Revolution in China, and other similar movements. It's why socialists destroy churches and suppress even seemingly apolitical artists. To a socialist, these are all manifestations of False Consciousness, even the ones that purport to be non-political or leftist themselves. They must be destroyed and replaced with institutions that instill Class Consciousness and adherence to the ideals of the Revolution.

They sometimes make useful allies prior to the revolution itself, but once in power anything not wholeheartedly socialist is a potential threat to the whole system through cultural contagion.

[Anonymous No.6696883]

>>6696805
>Every socialist revolution (including offshoots like the fascists)

when will you libertarians realize that your state vs freedom garbage is just as reductive and dumb as any left vs right garbage

[Anonymous No.6696910]

Read El Hombre que Amaba a los Perros.

[Anonymous No.6696956]

>>6689336
You should probably read into how to kill oneself.

[Anonymous No.6696972]

>>6689336
History

[Anonymous No.6696985]

>>6695813
>They are the right's SJWs.
They lack the "moral power" of SJWs and ability to generate clickbait articles that get tons of views.


>>6696044
>Economics tends to have a few conservatives, some libertarians, but is mostly liberal.
You can be economically liberal and socially conservative so I don't see how being "liberal" disqualifies you from being a conservative.

[Anonymous No.6697024]

>>6696883

Fascists diverged from socialists by replacing class solidarity with national or racial solidarity. They considered themselves a branch of socialism, to the point that Nazi is short for national socialist worker's party. Other than the racism, fascist policies were identical to the socialist program: nationalize private property, intense government regulation especially of public health, cradle-to-grave social welfare system, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs", institution of a total society to remove all competing ideologies.

While race vs class is a major distinction, it's easy to overplay it. The real issue was whether the world revolution would be organized and managed centrally by COMINTERN (from Moscow) or by each local socialist party. Fascism gave them the theoretical basis for rejecting that leadership. The Fascism/Socialism battles of the early 20th century were similar to the Reformation: conflict between two divergent branches of the same faith.

Meanwhile, every socialist country has harnessed nationalism in practice despite condemning it in theory. For their part, fascist organizations resisting Moscow quickly united in an alliance (eventually lead from Germany). Their views and theory diverged from orthodox marxism considerably, especially once the nazis' brand of german mysticism was mixed in.

If you want to say later that the Soviets made immense sacrifices to defeat the Nazis, then of course you're right. That doesn't change the fact that fascism is absolutely a mutant strain of socialism. Their common origins and ideology are very obvious and extremely well documented historically.

[Anonymous No.6697043]

>>6696985
>>>6696044
>>Economics tends to have a few conservatives, some libertarians, but is mostly liberal.
>You can be economically liberal and socially conservative so I don't see how being "liberal" disqualifies you from being a conservative.

I mean liberal in the modern American sense. Are they calling it progressive this week? Whatever label you want to use for moderate to radical left-wing in the United States.

Or are you referring to that particular combination? I once taught at a Christian school where some of the theology professors were socially conservative / economically left-wing, but nowhere else in academia.

[Anonymous No.6697045]

>>6697024
Wow all your posts are very good.

You're a professor in what field?

[Anonymous No.6697052]

>>6693010
Foucault was definitely anti-capitalist.

[Anonymous No.6697072]

>>6697043
When you use liberal when talking about economics I think of someone more like Mankiw who wrote one of the widely used textbooks than you standard progressive.

[Anonymous No.6697076]

>>6697072
*one of the most widely used textbooks in the field*

[Anonymous No.6697135]

>>6697024
Fascists did more privatization than anyone else in Europe at the time. Stop being retarded

[Anonymous No.6697151]

>>6696985
>They lack the "moral power" of SJWs

This kind of gets to what I'm saying. The whole point of being an SJW isn't that you have strong opinions (all ideologies have that), or even that they're strong left-wing beliefs (which have also been around for ages), or even that they're totally positively sure they're right.

It's that rather than debating other political activists or trying to win elections, they mostly focus their efforts on getting political concessions from supposedly non-political institutions. For example, forcing Starbucks to have a policy on whether you can carry a firearm inside, or going after those two programmers telling a dirty joke in private at a trade show, or picking a fight with computer gamers. So why fight these battles at all? Why target noncombatants?

Part of it is that it appeals to the natural tendency to be a bully. It makes them feel powerful and strong, and so much the better that it's all in the name of what they see as a good cause. Debating politically active and educated opponents in a political forum is tough. Attacking people who don't care about politics and jumping them when they're trying to do something else is easy. The instinct isn't to debate them, it's to make concessions so that they Just Shut Up. But either way, they win because they've politicized it. So, yeah, easy target for bullying is one reason.

Most of it is this >>6696805

By not actively advancing revolutionary ideals, a nonpolitical group or person is contributing to bourgeois culture. Even if they don't realize it. Hence the idea of microaggression (itself derived from Galtung's idea of Structural Violence).

Whether they know it or not, all institutions either contribute to Class Consciousness or False Consciousness, and the latter must be changed or destroyed if a truly just society is to be created. Or, to use the old slogan, "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem."

[Anonymous No.6697251]

>>6697024
Yeah, and the Congo calls itself a Democratic Republic.

There's almost no basis for anything you're saying here. Hitler broke unions and supported industrialists. Socialist writers didn't influence Hitler or Mussolini; neither were concerned with ownership of the means of production. Only by interpreting any state program as "socialism" can you possibly equate the two.

[Anonymous No.6697338]

>>6696805
>Capitalist hegemomy and power structures are human nature

[Anonymous No.6697399]

>>6696703
>democratic anything, ideals are diluted and compromises have to be made else one will never achieve popular acclaim

I think your concept of democracy is too idealistic. The asymmetrical relationship between the ruler and the ruled and institutional factors allow those in charge to push reforms may straight up go against what a big part of the electorate wanted.

Furthermore I don't see having to compromise sometimes as something bad. Articles like http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1644399 have shown me the value of things like rule of law and compromise. The militants gained power in places like Russia and China, suppressed the shit out of everything and have little to show for it. Russia is now just a bland conservative strongman type government filled with oligarchs and China recreated the same working and environmental conditions that socialists fought against. Even the police system in China has serious problems like http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2563304 show.

The communists peculiar brand of absolutism allowed the US to get away with a "anything goes" strategy when dealing with communism because when they gained power they had the tendency to kill or target anybody that disagreed with them left or right.

[Anonymous No.6697405]

>>6696805
>Every socialist revolution (including offshoots like the fascists)

Fascism is the "break in case of emergency" of capitalism. It is capitalism in crisis, defending itself from being destroyed.

[Anonymous No.6697433]

>>6697251

The Soviets banned trade unions as well. Both they and the fascists (and let's remember that fascism included Italy, Spain, and others) nationalized industries. Or in sometimes confiscated them from their owners and turned them over to political cronies, which amounted to the same thing.

Go back and read Mussolini-- his ideas were explicitly modeled on the total society and socialism. Today, we think "totalitarian" as total control, which of course it is, but his point was that it also means total care of the individual. Fascist societies immediately implemented widespread public health regulations, nationalized healthcare, and cradle-to-grave benefits.

The Catholic church has little to brag about during this era, but there's no denying that the Nazis actively sought to undermine and destroy christian denominations, for precisely the same reasons as the socialists. They simply devoted far more energy to racial eliminationism (something the socialists didn't have).

Liberal (as in left-wing/progressive) writers such as H.G. Wells were comfortable discussing the common heritage of socialism and fascism, at least before the Nazis emerged. The fascist views on war as an engine of social change are mirrored in the left-wing philosopher William James, who invented the concept of the Moral Equivalent of War-- a concept the Left still espouses to this day.

Socialist countries like the USSR didn't merely dabble in racism or exploit nationalist sentiment. They also had active eugenics programs in place similar to those created by the fascists. The Left in the United States agitated to establish one as well, to reduce "genetic pollution", over fierce objections from fundamentalist Christians.

The ties between the two ideologies are long and deep. After WW2, especially in light of the holocaust, the Left did everything to disassociate itself from socialism. But there's no denying its origins there. They'd have been better off spending more effort explaining how Nazi atrocities were a perversion of socialism, or how fascist ideology had diverged too much. But it's tempting to talk in sweeping absolutes.

For that matter, now we see today people claiming that China and the USSR were not really socialist at all-- in exactly the same way they claimed it about the fascists. You can say, "they changed too much" or "they didn't do it right" but you can't deny their origins. At least, not honestly.

[Anonymous No.6697461]

>>6697405

Nonsense. Fascism paints an idealistic (from their point of view) picture of a working society. It's not an emergency measure, it's an end-state they desire.

Now, you are right that existential threats are a time when free societies are vulnerable to fascism. But societies in such a situation are vulnerable to all kinds of revolutionary change: religious revivals, socialism, breakdown into gangs... fascism is just one of many things a free market can be replaced with.

[Anonymous No.6697487]

>>6697433

See >>6697405 and >>6697135

Fascist governments REVERSED the trend of narionalizations in Europe at the time and privatized the most industry in Europe in that time period.

[Anonymous No.6697497]

>>6697487

Repeating yourself doesn't make you less wrong, it just makes you more boring.

[Anonymous No.6697514]

>>6697497
Whar is wrong? Do you deny that Fascist governments reversed the trend of socialization at the time in Europe and privatized more industries than any other nation?

[Anonymous No.6697524]

>>6697433
Fascism was a direct response to the gains made by the working class in the post-war period. In both Germany and Italy the objective was to destroy the 'trade-union state', as Weimar was dismissively referred to, and reverse the balance of power within the factory. In return for financial support Hitler explicitly promised (most notably at the infamous 20 Feb meeting) to freeze wage levels, combat unions and establish of regional bureaucracies (Treuhaender der Arbeit) to favourably regulate labour affairs. Nor would this support really come back to trouble them - most of the men who attended the 20 Feb meeting profited hugely from the war, with defence contracts making up for lost exports

What should be apparent from the above is that the bourgeoisie actively favoured increased state control in order to bolster their own power in the factories. Free trade and laissez faire are the policies of a dominant and confident bourgeoisie. Where this position is under threat, from either external competition or internal class struggle, then they are just as likely to advocate protectionist or interventionist measures

[Anonymous No.6697539]

News from Nowhere?

[Anonymous No.6697554]

>>6697433
>Go back and read Mussolini
From what I've seen about him he is kinda all over the place. At one point he criticizes others for "clinging to ideological rafters like bats" or something to that effect boasting how fascists were willing to called themselves all types of things.

>They also had active eugenics programs
I don't see how this makes you fascists being that guys like Kenyes and others in the anglo sphere also supported it.

>but there's no denying that the Nazis actively sought to undermine and destroy christian denominations
I'm not so sure about this. Mussolini toned his anti catholic rhetoric down and Hilter had no problem making use of the church. Only the Soviets and the Chinese went out of their way to destroy religious sites and priests.

>and let's remember that fascism included Italy, Spain, and others
I'm not even sure if Spain would count.

[Anonymous No.6697568]

>>6697433
Is your argument that fascist thinkers were primarily influenced by socialist thinkers? Or is it that any state action is "a strain of socialism"?

Put it this way: can you come up with a hypothetical state action that you do not consider socialism?

[Anonymous No.6697643]

>>6697524
>Fascism was a direct response to the gains made by the working class in the post-war period

Right, because working class people were made rich by the depression. oh, they were only poor because of the bourgeoisie, and only a communist revolution could fix their situation? Then how come after Hitler liquidated the funds from corrupt jewish business and factory owners and replaced them with nationalists who actually cared about their workers and their country, Germany became the powerhouse of Europe? So much so, Winston Churchill decided they were TOO powerful and must be taken down?

Point is, there wasn't really a 'class stuggle'. The working class were disenfranchised by the people in power who basically fucked over the entire country to get money for themselves (the Jews). If Hitler didn't come into power, different Jews (but still on team jew) would have promoted communism as the way out, and they would have been in the same situation as the USSR.

Hitler saw Communism for what it was; just pure vitriol towards the bourgeuousie, with no realistic fix to further the working class' lot. When he worked around Vienna and talked with the working class, he read all the communist pamphlets and saw how it only made the working class upset with their countrymen, when they really should have been upset with a foreign parasite literally draining the country. Hence, he wrote that he thought the more right-wing parties were foolish to totally disavow trade unions, and that alienated the working class more than anything. So, Hitler wasn't against trade unions. Hence National Socialism.

[Anonymous No.6697666]

>>6697514

The nazi party platform demanded:

* Government-provided education
* Government-provided healthcare
* Government-provided old age care
* Government-guaranteed employment
* Nationalization of industry, especially military industry. Profits outlawed and control seized and turned over to the government.
* Nationalization and redistribution of land
* Banning profits from stock ownership, loans, and investments. Calling it "unearned income" is a common left-wing trope; it's used the same way by American liberals to this day

Once elected, the Nazis did briefly privatize a few government operations (mostly banks) to generate cash. However, they nationalized most industries at the same time, and even the companies they let go were firmly under the control of regulators and political cronies. "Privatization", where it occurred at all, was purely pro forma. Even where companies were able to maintain a pretense of independence (mostly small businesses) were placed under the control of local government councils. By the end of the 30's, they abandoned even the pretense of private control.

This was essentially similar to Italian Fascists, who also seized national control of the economy and heavy industry, and also instituted a network of local control councils and price controls.

This demonstrates an interesting difference between the socialists and the fascists. For socialists, *ownership* is the sole criterion for class membership and therefore the only fact of importance in a society. For fascists, who'd replaced class unity with racial unity, *control* is more important, and learning from the Soviet experience with nationalization and worker control, they sought to seize control while leaving a thin patina of independence.

Of course, the only two qualities of a share of stock that matter are that it gives you a vote to elect a board which in turn selects management and sets corporate policy, and it gives you a claim on profits. Socialism eliminates stocks outright. Fascism lets you keep your piece of paper, but removes all meaning from it, because all the control stems from the government and all the profits are returned to the government.

Meanwhile, although the Soviets had experimented with workers voting on managerial decisions, they had abandoned it by this point. As with the fascists, executives and managers were selected by the political apparatus. Subsequent socialist systems have mostly followed the fascist model of gradual subordination rather than direct collectivization.

[Anonymous No.6697678]

>>6697643
>Then how come after Hitler liquidated the funds from corrupt jewish business and factory owners and replaced them with nationalists who actually cared about their workers and their country, Germany became the powerhouse of Europe?
Adam Tooze in "The Wages of Destruction" already crushed this type of thinking.

>and they would have been in the same situation as the USSR.
Stalin and company vastly increased Russia's GDP, production capability, and living standards. See Farm to Factory by Robert C. Allen http://www.mediafire.com/download/gr3hg3armgvsa9v/Farm_To_Factory.rar

[Anonymous No.6697692]

>>6697554
>>They also had active eugenics programs
>I don't see how this makes you fascists being that guys like Kenyes and others in the anglo sphere also supported it.

Exactly! The American progressive Left were rabid fans of eugenics. It was the "backwards' christians and conservatives who opposed it.

>>but there's no denying that the Nazis actively sought to undermine and destroy christian denominations
>I'm not so sure about this. Mussolini toned his anti catholic rhetoric down and Hilter had no problem making use of the church. Only the Soviets and the Chinese went out of their way to destroy religious sites and priests.

Go back and read early Mussolini. It was only when the stability of his government was threatened that he finally made his peace with the Church. Similarly to the relationships some modern Socialists in latin america have with the Church. For his part, Hitler abolished church youth groups, folding all religious fervor into party fervor, but his main focus was on eliminating his racial enemies.

>>6697568

The point is that fascism evolved FROM socialism. Not that it's the same thing or that socialists are closet fascists.

>>6697643

Now, let's dissect this asshole. Insofar as he makes a point at all, it's that he starts from a fundamentally marxist view of class struggle, then removes the capitalist class and replaces them with his scary joooz. That's the core ideological difference between fascists and socialists: replacing a class grievance with a racial grievance. Each thought the other was focused on the wrong enemy, but had similar worldviews and plans for dealing with it.

[Anonymous No.6697700]

>>6697678
>Stalin and company vastly increased Russia's GDP, production capability, and living standards

For all its flaws, in terms of per-capita growth, the Soviet system did prove superior to feudalism. Absolutely. I'd quibble with "vastly" but I'm not a cliometrician.

[Anonymous No.6697709]

>>6697692
>Now, let's dissect this asshole
ok, go ahead.

I hope a straw man wasn't your 'dissection', that would be quite laughable.

>That's the core ideological difference between fascists and socialists: replacing a class grievance with a racial grievance. Each thought the other was focused on the wrong enemy, but had similar worldviews and plans for dealing with it

You know what, this actually makes sense. However, one way is proven to work in humans and has since the dawn of civilization (hierarchical structures of expanded clan-types ("races"), based on mutual benefit and trust), and the other is a late 19th century doctrine created by a parasitic people hoping to eschew blame anywhere but on them, because, heaven forbid, that would actually fix the problem and lead to prosperity! But then where would the Jews live? They can't build their own society, they dont even hold oaths to their family, how can they create a complex ethno-civilization based on trust?

[Anonymous No.6697710]

>>6697692
Repeating my question: can you come up with a hypothetical state action that you do not consider socialism?

[Anonymous No.6697711]

>>6697700
>I'd quibble with "vastly"
Why? The baseline was low. Making a vast improvement over the previous situation wasn't that hard.

[Anonymous No.6697718]

>>6697643

Weimar's demise was directly related to the presence of a powerful conservative/reactionary lobby that had never been convinced that the Republic was legitimate in the first place. There was never any serious threat of a 'communist takeover' in Germany or a new revolution; rather the objective of the Hindenburg ministries, and ultimate co-opting of the Nazis, was not to pre-empt the communists but to roll back socialist post-war gains

Similarly in Italy. The common denominator between the two was not threatened property rights or a weak bourgeoisie, but the strength (edit: or rather the lack of strength) of the state apparatus. There was never any serious possibility of fascism in France or Britain - despite serious anti-communist sentiment at the highest levels and, in France, the emergence of an energised mass labour movement - because the bourgeoisie accepted the legitimacy of their respective states and worked within their structures. Only when this was not the case, and the capitalists were forced to contemplate more radical solutions, did the potential for a fascist takeover materialise

[Anonymous No.6697730]

>>6697678
>Stalin and company vastly increased Russia's GDP, production capability, and living standards
Sergei Witte improved them far more quickly under the Tsars, but we don't generally note things like this because massive improvements from a baseline of complete and utter shit are not actually all that impressive. Your apologism for Stalin - the greatest evil other than Mao to ever walk the face of the earth - is sickening, you little commie.

[Anonymous No.6697734]

>>6697709
>by a parasitic people hoping to eschew blame anywhere but on them, because, heaven forbid, that would actually fix the problem and lead to prosperity!
In every single nation around that time the actions of the Southern planter, factory owner, landlord, or various tycoons most of if not all were homegrown and had way more effect on the working classes living conditions than the "Jews" who in many countries a majority of them were often poor.

[Anonymous No.6697738]

>>6697730
>our apologism for Stalin - the greatest evil other than Mao to ever walk the face of the earth - is sickening, you little commie.
Thats not apologism its stating facts. The reforms made before were in many cases ineffective, something that the book's author who is a liberal economist notes.

[Anonymous No.6697743]

>>6697568

That's the thing. Socialism isn't a means, it's a worldview. There are plenty of strains of totalitarians who aren't socialists (monarchs and theocracies come immediately to mind) but who still are or can be totalitarian.

Socialism posits that all world history is fundamentally economic, and relates to the conflict between the ownership class and the laboring class. (Yes, I'm grossly oversimplifying here.) That different levels of economic/technological development lend themselves to different political systems. Each system is replaced, almost always violently, when it becomes outmoded. Each system is based on a series of lies that keep the have-nots busy fighting each other, and the haves in power (false consciousness). Those lies manifest as loyalties to nation, race, gender, religion-- anything that can keep people divided. In their view, capitalism (aka free market economics) isn't a natural phenomenon of how people make voluntary exchanges, it's a social institution as artificial as a constitution or papal encyclical, and just as open to change.

Eventually, development culminates in a sufficient level of prosperity at some point in the future that you can create a true worker's state, where the ownership class is eliminated entirely and no further lies or conflicts are necessary.

Radical socialists usually argue that that time is now, hence the need for immediate revolution. You can be a socialist and say that we're not developed enough yet to leave the capitalist phase, but in practice few do.

Fascists take all this as given, then scribble out "owners" and "laborers" and replace them with "furriners/jooz" and "our race/nation". Or, somewhat hilariously in the case of American fascists, "furriners/jooz" and "the people of some other country across the ocean that doesn't even believe this shit anymore". But otherwise, especially for Italian fascism, once you make this leap, there really isn't much else that changes.

[Anonymous No.6697760]

>>6697743
>In their view, capitalism (aka free market economics) isn't a natural phenomenon of how people make voluntary exchanges, it's a social institution as artificial as a constitution or papal encyclical, and just as open to change
The historical and anthropological record is decidedly on the side of the socialists here, my man.

[Anonymous No.6697763]

>>6697711

Because there's always the implicit question of what would have happened if the Romanovs had been deposed and replaced with free elections leading to a free market.

We've still yet to see a free market operate in Russia. Yeltsin's decision to close the open markets in Moscow was a tragic end to that experiment, though even the crap they have is Barry Goldwater compared to what they abandoned.

I'll answer your question more directly. If the racist asshole in the thread attacks my home and the police come, that's not socialist. When Iran hangs gays in the public square, that's disgusting and evil but not socialist. When two countries go to war, neither are necessarily socialist. Collecting taxes to build public works isn't necessarily socialist (though it can be used that way). But it really is more about worldview than specific actions taken in abstract.

[Anonymous No.6697770]

>>6697734
>In every single nation around that time the actions of the Southern planter, factory owner, landlord, or various tycoons most of if not all were homegrown and had way more effect on the working classes living conditions than the "Jews" who in many countries a majority of them were often poor.

Very true. And oftentimes their lives were not the excruciating orgies of pain we so foolish project on them in our modern worship of 'freedom'.

>"slaves almost always had food and housing, were more often than not treated as part of the family in Southern society"
>"yeah, but they weren't FREE!!!, we gotta set them FREE!!!"

And now you have the lower classes of people thinking they are finally free from their masters who made their lives a living hell by calling them 'boy' or 'peasant' or 'serf', but are instead slaves to jewish corporatists who push materiality and consumerism as a path to happiness.

So yes, the people in power did have more influence over the working classes than "Jews", but not anymore, to their lower classes' detriment.

[Anonymous No.6697795]

>>6697763
>Because there's always the implicit question of what would have happened if the Romanovs had been deposed and replaced with free elections leading to a free market.
I wouldn't expect much being that even if that did happened they lacked the necessary materials to create a good market economy or democracy.

[Anonymous No.6697801]

>>6697760

I tried to do a research project with a cultural anthropologist once. She opened the conversation by saying, "we have to recognize for starters that the so-called science of economics is entirely invalid and based on false premises." I was stunned, asking myself why she'd bother doing research with me at all, but she launched into a highly theoretical explanation based on german philosophy and marxism. I thanked her for her time and left. Later, I looked at her research and couldn't find anything that I'd have considered empirical at all.

She didn't get tenure.

The historical record I'm quite familiar with. Records from before about a century ago are very vague, but appear to support the generalizability of the laws of economics, at least on the micro side. Macro remains voodoo, but we already know that, right?

Meanwhile, socialism makes specific predictions, none of which have been realized. Intelligent people still believe in it, and have formulated tweaks that have yet to be tested, but currently the evidence falsifies that theory.

Fun fact: modern science is based on the epistemology of Karl Popper. He was a socialist who felt that socialism had been invalidated by the empirical record. He generalized he work explaining that, and that's the origin of the modern scientific method.

[Anonymous No.6697810]

>>6697770

Guys, I swear, this guy isn't me trolling. So far as I can tell, he's a genuine fascist illustrating my point. While also reminding us why although also bad, socialism isn't QUITE as bad as fascism. Or at least is better at spelling and grammar.

And a racist asshole. Let's not forget that. Also romanticizing slavery and subsistence farming under feudalism.

[Anonymous No.6697826]

>>6697770
>And oftentimes their lives were not the excruciating orgies of pain we so foolish project on them in our modern worship of 'freedom'.
No in many cases they were which is why you had so many around the time of the Civil War commenting about the wretched condition of the white working class, some going so far to say they had it worst then slaves.

>So yes, the people in power did have more influence over the working classes than "Jews", but not anymore, to their lower classes' detriment.
No they still have more influence than some shadowy notions of "Jews", the boss, police, local officials, non state organizations having far more influence over the lower class.

[Anonymous No.6697836]

>>6697801
That's a really horrible misrepresentation of Popper's legacy: he claimed to have falsified Marxism; "socialism" is far too broad (and as a body of thought, makes no "specific predictions"). It sounds like the person you were working with was an idiot, but I don't really see your views as particularly less boneheaded if this is how you characterize Popper's views or politics.

Culturally specific contexts for property and use seem to pretty clearly obviate any application of Marshallian demand curves in pre-capitalist societies. I'm aware that some economists like to apply utility-maximization to modern ritualistic behavior; and sure, if you do that, then we could forcibly read all human behavior as capitalistic, but in that case you're begging the question.

I'm not even a socialist unless you define it very broadly - I'm not in favor of revolution, and I like the Keynes/Minsky school of economics. But you are saying some really silly things.

[Anonymous No.6697887]

>>6695370
Maybe at the end of his life, but wasn't he a hardcore syndicalist for a majority of his career?

[Anonymous No.6697928]

>>6697801

Fun fact: most working scientists probably don't know who Karl Popper is.

[Anonymous No.6697932]

>>6697810

>So far as I can tell, he's a genuine fascist illustrating my point. While also reminding us why although also bad, socialism isn't QUITE as bad as fascism. Or at least is better at spelling and grammar.

At least I'm intelligible. These sentences are a butchering of the English language, they make no sense.

>And a racist asshole. Let's not forget that

Better people have been called worse.

>Also romanticizing slavery and subsistence farming under feudalism.

Ridiculous. Leftist are the ones responsible for romanticism the working classes. I know it may be hard for your "bourgeouse but I'm totally a communist" mind, but not all working people want to overthrow their "masters" and institute a communist state. And its not because they don't know about Marx's enlightening ideas. Some people simply want to live their life and have a family and support that family. They dont care who's telling them what to do, as long as they feel they have a purpose and are doing something they feel is worthwhile.

Hate to burst your evil strawman, but I'm not a fascist. I just want people to think outside the box and it is so ubiquitous today to see younger people believe they've stumbled onto something revelatory and thats its all so simple that "like, dude, why don't the workers just own the factory?! That will teach those factory managers who never work!!". Thats fine to think for awhile, but you have to see all points of criticism and decide for yourself. The university system certainly isn't open to differing viewpoints, so why am I not allowed to bring it up here?

[Anonymous No.6698102]

You should read some Frank Knight (quoted up-thread). He reconstructs the basic tenets of microeconomics without currency and minimal cultural assumptions. About 90 years ago. Economists have looked at this problem. The problem is that most anthropologists lack the basic math required to even have the conversation.

[Anonymous No.6698210]

>>6697151
I fucking love you.

[Anonymous No.6698240]

>>6690113

Part II of The Road to Wiggan Pier does such a good job of critiquing middle class socialists that it almost destroys Orwell's own pro-socialist argument.

[Anonymous No.6698249]

>>6697151
So how do neoliberals function as the right's SJWs? I can't think of anything recent they have done that is equivalent to producing enough outrage to run a small pizza place out of business, get Eich fired, or get Tim Hunt axed.

[Anonymous No.6698315]

>>6698240
I'm surprised I've never heard anybody mention that work. After reading it online you are definitely correct about the critique part.

[Anonymous No.6698432]

>>6697826
>No in many cases they were which is why you had so many around the time of the Civil War commenting about the wretched condition of the white working class, some going so far to say they had it worst then slaves.

The South wasn't exactly a hub of industrial output, it was more agricultural. So I'm curious as to how you are blaming factory owners for failing farms which caused their wretched condition.

Maybe you could make that claim today and have some people believe you, blaming pollution or a pipeline or what have you, but that wasn't exactly the case back then. Point is, sometimes things don't work out for people and they go into poverty. It's not always "The Man" behind it.

[Anonymous No.6698507]

>>6698432
>So I'm curious as to how you are blaming factory owners for failing farms which caused their wretched condition.
I'm not blaming factory owners as they didn't really exist as a force in the South. The South's growth was actually retarded by polices that limited industrialization/commerce.

[Anonymous No.6698521]

>>6698432
>sometimes things don't work out for people and they go into poverty. It's not always "The Man" behind it.

I've never seen ideology this pure in the wild.

[Anonymous No.6698634]

>>6698521
>"weel, my corns crops not lookin too good this year...looks like we'll hafta struggle tuh get through this winter"
>"you know, its obviously a complex institution of bourgeois power that has a ruling class institute its own metrics over the oppressed people that is to blame"
>"No, I reckon its just ol' Bess is on her last legs and we dint get much rain this year"
>"UGH you people and your ideology!!"

[Anonymous No.6698795]

>>6698240
He does it in Keep the Aspidistra Flying too, though not as heavily

[Anonymous No.6698930]

>>6698634
I stand corrected.

[Anonymous No.6699210]

>>6689336
Why would you read books that affirms and confine your thinking to an ideology?

[Anonymous No.6699523]

>>6697887
Syndicalism is basically libertarian socialism via trade unions.

[Anonymous No.6699781]

>>6689406
I started with Gramsci when I got into socialism which isn't a very logical order of reading things but it was a fun read nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.6699787]

>>6689336
An economics textbook

[Anonymous No.6699835]

These threads always descend into shit throwing by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Socialism = Workers owning the means of production
Communism = A stateless, classless, socialist society where things are distributed from ability to need
Means of production = Things used to produce like machines and factories
The state = A group of people who successfully claim the only legitimate use of force over territory
Working class = People who sell their labour-power for a wage because they don't own the means of production
Bourgeois = The people who own the means of production
Personal property = Stuff intended for personal use like your house, phone, food etc.
Private property = A social relationship between people who own (the means of production) and those who are deprived

>>6689336
*What is property? - Proudhon (Mutualist Anarchism)
The conquest of bread - Peter Kropotkin (Anarchist Communism)
*Capital - Karl Marx (Marxist Communism)
*The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx (Marxist Communism)
Anarcho-Syndicalism - Rudolf Rocker (Anarchist Syndicalism)
Anarchism and Other Essays - Emma Goldman (Anarchist Feminism)

What is property is a very important book in the history of socialism, I reccommend that you read that one if any. Capial is also important but may be a bit too heavy for you at first, it's quite large.

[Anonymous No.6699883]

>>6697151
Anything far-left or far-right is about alleviating guilt and giving yourself permission to commit sadistic and aggressive acts by thinking of yourself as a hero figure.

[Anonymous No.6700125]

>>6698249

No idea. I'm not that anon.

[Anonymous No.6700131]

>>6699210

He wants to learn about socialism. What's wrong with that? He didn't say that's all he ever wanted to learn.

[Anonymous No.6700263]

>>6693975
>Keynes
>Right
I won't comment too much on his general outlook in economy, but his onetary works are axful and his works in probability are so wrong it hurts.

He got completely "btfo" by Mises. By that I mean Richard von Mises, though his brother Ludwig wasn't a fan of Keynes for good reasons.

[Anonymous No.6700708]

>>6699835

This is a great list that actually answers the OP's question.

Be warned, though. Socialists have their own very specific vocabulary and definitions. Many times, they don't just disagree with alternative points of view, but actually deny that they even exist. In some cases, that's just a tactic to win arguments, but in others it's just that someone marinades in socialist literature for so long that they stop being aware of other ideas except in terms of their socialist critiques.

Either way, the opening salvo is something along the lines of "you don't know what that word means". Sometimes that's true, but often the response is "no, I know what definition you prefer, but here's my definition and here's why it's better".

I think it's important to have an understanding of other ideologies, not just in terms of how your own tribe views them but in terms of how they view themselves. A good conservative or libertarian should read Marx and his followers. A good liberal or socialist should read Friedman, Hayek, Sowell, Burke, etc. A fascist should learn to read. Breadth of knowledge is a good thing even if it doesn't change your opinions.

[Anonymous No.6700720]

>>6700263

Milton Friedman has said that Keynes was a genius, albeit one whose theories were later disproved empirically.

His General Theory is worth reading even if you disagree with it.

[Anonymous No.6700997]

>>6700263
Can you link to whatever von Mises's brother wrote about Keynes? And I don't understand what you're saying about Keynes' "monetary works" - that's basically his entire corpus, General Theory included.

>>6700720
Friedman was a pop-econ hack whose greatest "accomplishment" was popularizing a restatement of the quantity theory of money - an identity which had been known to be true since basically the beginning of the economics discipline. If you're well-versed enough in economics, just read Keynes' General Theory for a better statement of Friedman's monetarism than anything Friedman actually wrote.

[Anonymous No.6701021]

>>6700997

That's pretty much entirely wrong. Even hard-core Keynesian economists don't believe that.

[Anonymous No.6701055]

>>6701021
Most "hard-core Keynesians" have expanded the discipline since Keynes. (Do you know how many times fiscal stimulus is mentioned in the General Theory? Zero.) I agree with them, but that's not the point. In the actual text of the GT you'll find more support for something like what Scott Sumner supports (market monetarism, NGDP targeting, etc.). Friedman didn't really add anything to the field of macroeconomics - he just restated stuff Keynes already said in clearer terms and added a sheen of pro-capitalism propaganda.