[ 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: 54 KB, 1024x667, capitalism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6728050 No.6728050 [Reply] [Original]

What are books on capitalist ideology?

>> No.6728723

>>6728050
Animal Farm

fuck George Orwell

>> No.6728763
File: 150 KB, 460x337, tumblr_m6ygdbL2Ev1qcu0j0o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6728763

>>6728050
Pure ideology.

Just watch/read Slavoj. If you didn't, start with the Greeks.

>> No.6728771

>>6728763
dude that guy's fucking gnarly balls insane

>> No.6728803

>>6728771
Ok. He's still right tho. Not to mention entertaining.

>> No.6728850

>>6728803
>number of unique IPs: 3
>I am >>6728723 and >>6728771 that's one
>OP is two
>That leaves >>6728763 and >>6728803, and since OP is asking the question i doubt he affirmed your post.

identified for samefagging. Not that it matters much in this context. I'm just calling you out. Bitch.

>> No.6728880

>>6728850
Good work, anon. That is another open and shut case.

>> No.6729380

>>6728850

Good work anon. Glad you're on the case today

>> No.6729448

>>6728050
Read Althusser, read Adorno, and most of all enjoy

>> No.6729888

>>6728723

You obviously didn't understand the book if you think it's pure pro-capitalism

>> No.6729919

>>6729888
it's not pure pro-capitalism

it's also anti-communism

it's George Orwell being a smart motherfucker and making a child-friendly piece of propaganda so all public schools everywhere buy the shit.

>> No.6730014

>>6728880
>>6729380
!!!!

>> No.6730039

>>6728050
Ayn Rand

>> No.6730053

>>6730039
Bioshock : )

>> No.6730072 [DELETED] 
File: 115 KB, 765x1050, 1434146157437.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6730072

>>6728050
Go to a synagogue and they'll tell you.

>> No.6731245

>>6728050
Read Hayek and Bastiat.

>> No.6731264

Capitalism is not an ideology. It is what occurs when people are allowed to move goods and services freely according to their own personal desires.

Now, you can tack ideologies ONTO that. Libertarianism is both a political movement (Seeing the faults of the current U.S. Government and thus wishing to hamper it so as to no longer have those faults) and a philosophy. Objectivism also tacks onto Capitalism.

But again, Capitalism is not an ideology. It's a natural occurrence. That's like asking for "wildfire ideology", "birth ideology", or "Genetic ideology". These things are natural occurrences, not manmade entities that can be warped and altered by philosophy*.

*A person's DESIRES can be warped and altered by philosophy of course, but they are still seeking out those new desires and moving resources around in a way so as to maximize the fulfillment of those new desires.

>> No.6731265

>>6729919

This.

>> No.6731268

>>6731264
>goods move freely in capitalist society
ayy

>> No.6731275

>>6731268
They do. Not perfectly of course.

>A perfectly free market can never exist!
Is a perfectly valid observation. One also made by every single economist worth his salt and every single economics textbook. This is not some groundbreaking observation only made recently, it's been discussed since "Studying how goods and services are exchanged" became an interest of academics.

>> No.6731279

>>6731264
>when people are allowed to move goods and services freely according to their own personal desires
Ayy kek. To paraphrase the old Soviet joke: and we all know who these people are, wink.

>> No.6731281

>>6731279
Yes. Consumers and producers.

>> No.6731284
File: 27 KB, 258x386, Benjamin-sm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6731284

>>6731264

>> No.6731289

>>6731281
>Yes. Consumers and producers.
ORly? You ever heard of things called 'tariffs' and 'taxes'? Look it up, this shit will blow your mind.

>> No.6731291

>>6729919
It's clearly not Anti-Communism

>> No.6731292

>>6731275
http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html
Never good to argue by sharing books
but this text gives compelling arguments to why our capitalist society is based on mercantilism and protectionism and not the free flow of goods.

>> No.6731294

>>6728050
On Capitalist Ideology? Every piece of shit of a book published with the sole purpose of selling, so John Green, Nicholas Sparks, etc... they are the embodiment of Capitalism.

>> No.6731296

>>6731289
>>6731292
Please read the entirety of a post before responding to it:

>Capitalism is not an ideology. It is what occurs when people are allowed to move goods and services freely according to their own personal desires.
>Now, you can tack ideologies ONTO that

Tariffs, quota, taxes, etc, etc, etc, are all ideologies that attempt to constrain the flow of goods and services in some manner or another. You can argue either way whether these things are good or bad of course, but that's not the point.

>> No.6731301

>>6731264
>And the apologist speaks, "my faith is not belief, it is nature!"

>> No.6731305
File: 48 KB, 853x480, 1433896782741.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6731305

>>6731296

>> No.6731308

>>6729919
It's anti-Marxism-Lenninsm not anti-communism.

>> No.6731312

>>6731264
Capitalism is more than the free market, it's private property and wage labour too.

>> No.6731316

>>6728050
Capital by Karl Marx
Wealth of nations by Adam Smith

If you're going to hail Mr. Smith then at least read his book all of the way through like Karl Marx did.

>> No.6731334

Conservatives freak out over the Frankfurt school as much as liberals freak out over the Chicago school

>> No.6731339

>>6731264
You are more informed than most of the posters here, but you are still wrong. Capitalism also requires some kind of mechanism where savings and profits are re-invested as new capital in the economy to generate more savings and profit. Repeat ad infinitum.

Capitalism = free trade

>> No.6731355

I think its sad that the only poster in this thread who knows what he is talking about and makes well constructed posts, is harrased with insults and stupid reaction images just because his view isn't "capitalism is le evil".

>>6731339

a.k.a. the free movement of capital.

>> No.6731372

>>6731339
>>6731355
Capitalism ≠ free trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Read the first paragraph, this is basic stuff.

>> No.6731392

>>6731372

Yes it also includes the existance and protection of private property.

Please don't try to school people, who have actually studied the subject matter at university, with fucking wikipedia articles.

>> No.6731401

>>6731355
>free movement of capital
'Free movement of capital' does not exist. (Just try 'freely moving' some money to ISIS and see for yourself.)

>> No.6731408

>>6731296
not that guy or anything but taxes aren't really an ideology

>> No.6731417

>>6731292
Google Nash equilibrium.

>> No.6731448

>>6728850
You realize the poster is refering to zizek when he says 'he'

>> No.6731450

>>6731401

Which is why you can argue that there is no open economic relationship between my country and ISIS. I don't see how that is relevant though.

Besides that, nobody is arguing that we live in 100% free market capitalism. The right to private property is limited (by law and by practical hindrances), the free movement of goods and services is limited (again, by law and by practical considerations), and even the free movement of capital is limited (mostly by transactions costs and law).
That doesn't change the fact that I (me, some average student kid) am in fact free to and capable of supplying capital to a huge number of different companies through financial markets. As we speak I have some of my capital made available to Microsoft, so that they can use it to generate welfare.
That is capitalism.

>> No.6731451

>>6729919
The book was apparently unpopular when it first came out because we were allies with the Soviets

>> No.6731456

>>6731408

Taxes are part of any ideology that believes that people (in a nation) have to pool some of their resources to be used for the public good.
The (entirely theoretical) free market doesn't have taxes.

>> No.6731468

>>6731450
In essense, you're trying to say that 'capitalism' is synonymous with 'financial markets'?

That's a bullshit definition -- there were 'financial markets' in the USSR and there aren't any 'financial markets' in libertarian Somalia.

>> No.6731499

>>6731468
> Libertarian Somalia

There can be anarchism without libertarian law. Please read that fat faggot fuckhead Friedman.

>> No.6731554

>>6731468
>libertarian Somalia
Somalia is a socialist state with many regions under sharia law.

>> No.6731671

>>6731468

No that is not at all what I'm saying. Can't you read?

Niether the USSR or Somalia have the right to private property.

First you come up with you own definition of capitalism, then you attribute that definition to me, and then you call it a bullshit definition. Solid debate there man.
Don't expect me to reply to you again if all you can do is argue against strawmen.

>> No.6731747

>>6731671
>Niether the USSR or Somalia have the right to private property.
Certainly they both have (had) private property rights. Serious question: are you retarded?

P.S. It's not a strawman if you constructed your argument retardedly in the first place.

>> No.6731767

>>6731747

In the USSR the state is at liberty to take what is yours at any time. In Somalia any random warlord is at liberty to take what is yours at any time.

They do not protect the right to private property.

What you did is a strawman, regardless of your opinion of my argument. What you did is almost literally the definition of it.

>> No.6731786

>>6731767
>In the USSR the state is at liberty to take what is yours at any time.
Certainly not! In the USSR you could own a house, a car, a bank account, you could own financial instruments (such as bonds). All this was fully protected by Soviet law and could no more be taken by the government than it could in the USA.

>In Somalia any random warlord is at liberty to take what is yours at any time.
Define 'yours'. If said warlord has control of said property, then it is _his_ private property, and you have no basis to claim it as your own.

>> No.6731810

>>6731279
You'd think soviets would have better jokes, with all that time spent waiting in line for bread.

>> No.6731822

>>6731786

>All this was fully protected by Soviet law and could no more be taken by the government than it could in the USA.

I highly doubt this was a reliable protection. It certainly wasn't for everyone. Either way, what's the point?

>Define 'yours'. If said warlord has control of said property, then it is _his_ private property, and you have no basis to claim it as your own.

... The whole idea of 'protection of private property' is that something being 'mine' makes it mine. Law protects me from people who would take it by force, and law says that its still 'mine' even if they do. Hence, in Somalia they don't have protection of property and hence no property rights. Hence no functioning capitalist system.

>> No.6731901

Are there any books about capitalism and culture?

>> No.6731911

>>6731822
>I highly doubt this was a reliable protection.
It was reliable as anywhere in the capitalist first world.
>It certainly wasn't for everyone.
Yes, it was for everyone.

The USSR had private property in the same sense you have private property right now in the USA.

The only difference is that in the USSR you could not own 'means of production'. (Essentially, this means you could not own stocks.)

The laws were universal and applied the same way to everyone, just like in the capitalist west.

>Either way, what's the point?
The point is that you're a fucking moron without a clue.

>The whole idea of 'protection of private property' is that something being 'mine' makes it mine.
Fucking hell, you just keep getting more and more retarded.

Look, tard: you 'own' something when you can control it. If you can't control it, then you don't own it. If a warlord takes something away from you in Somalia, then it wasn't yours in the first place.

>Law protects me from people who would take it by force, and law says that its still 'mine' even if they do.
Wrong. 'Law' is nothing but a framework wherein the government exercises its monopoly rights on violence. If you need to rely on big daddy government to enforce your control on things you 'own', then you don't really own them, you're using them on loan by permission from big daddy government.

>Hence no functioning capitalist system.
Your muddled so-called thinking hasn't produced any working concept of what a 'capitalist system' actually is. So far all you've managed to say is that foreign poopyheads you don't like are not capitalist, while good guy American allies are capitalist. Did you learn economics from a comic book?

>> No.6732001

>>6731911

Let me start by saying that your hostile tone of voice is rather pathetic. Is it that hard for you to disagree with someone without insulting them?

>you could not own 'means of production'

So no free flow of capital, hence no capitalism. Again, what's the point? We're only talking about the USSR because you dragged it into the conversation by using a strawman.
Btw, when you are send to the Gulag for having an opposing political view, is that respecting your property rights?

>Look, tard: you 'own' something when you can control it. If you can't control it, then you don't own it.

I can control what it is mine because of the laws we have. These laws protect my property even when someone violently takes it from me. That is because I live in a capitalist country that has laws to protect my property rights (A prerequisite for capitalism). In Somalia I can't control my property, because there is no state to protect it and I don't have the personal means to do it. Hence in Somalia there is no functioning capitalist system.

>big daddy government

You mean those people I have elected to represent me? Those people who, at my democratic request, use my capital to provide me with a variety of useful services, including protection of my private property?


PS: nobody will ever take you serious if you keep using so many pointless curse words when expressing your opinion.

>> No.6733601

>>6731245
Why was this man ignored?

>> No.6733615

>>6729448
fuck me

this was the only post that actually responded to OP's question

>> No.6733620

>>6728050
>capitalist
>ideology

Capitalism is pure economics. It is the opposite of ideologies that inject politics into economics, thus ruining markets.

>> No.6733656

>>6728850
Are you retarded? I said in a snese that Zizek is right about capitalism. Edgy teen ass bitch.

>> No.6733978

>>6728050
Read Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Robert Nozick, Friedrich von Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard. I am pretty sure there are more, but I am over that phase of my life.

>> No.6733981

>>6733978
>devolving as you get older

>> No.6733993

>>6733981
When you get older, you realize that libertarianism is nothing but a bunch of idealistic dribble for the edgy, like social justice is for the tumblrites and college students.

>> No.6734002

>>6733993
wow, look it u transcending the left right dichotomy. so reddit

>> No.6734044

>>6733620
thanks for the laugh

>> No.6734065

>>6733993
Well, maybe if you're into deontological libertarianism.

>> No.6734089
File: 23 KB, 430x308, ledetectiveconan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6734089

>>6728850

holy shit

>> No.6734373

>>6731392
I don't think he's trying.

>> No.6734404

>>6731264
>>6731339
>capitalism is free trade

I hate this shit. I think capitalism as such is a pretty poor definition. Capitalism is, in my mind, more accurately defined as an industrialized economy. The freedom of the movement of these goods is not of particular interest.

>> No.6734414

>>6734404
Capitalism is dominance of the credit system and wage labor.

To say capitalism equates to an industrialized economy is just silly, you can have an industrialized economy that isn't capitalist.

>> No.6734415

>>6731392
>studying economics
>something to be proud of

Top kek. The discipline which can make almost no predictions and yet likes to put itself in the position of authority regarding politics and its policies. It is a discipline whose raison d'etre is the justification of the status quo and nothing more.

>> No.6734429

>>6734414
I don't think it is that silly. Any attempts to formulate an industrialized society has ended up with the liberal-capitalist system we know today. It is the only way industrial society has managed to organize itself. It is precisely the industrial revolution which spawned the wage-labor system.

I am approaching this from a materialist perspective, but I think that the true hallmark of a capitalist society has been industrialization. The other traits you list are secondary consequences of this organization. Ones which industrial societies tend to drift towards in order to maximize their functioning.

>> No.6734455

>>6734404
Capitalism means private ownership.

>> No.6734481

>>6734455
So they say.

>> No.6734496

>>6734404
>more accurately defined as an industrialized economy
But that's wrong, you fucking retard.

>> No.6734520

>>6734496
Because the current definitions make more sense? What the fuck is private ownership of the means of production? Or even worse, a "free" market?

No, capitalism is just the name we give the organization that industrialized societies tend towards. It's why the development of capitalism follows from the development of industry.

>> No.6734524

You guys better straighten out a uniform definition of what Capitalism is before debating and analyzing its implication

>> No.6734528

>>6734520
>Capitalism is an economic system and a mode of production in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned. Private firms and proprietorships usually operate in order to generate profit, but may operate as private nonprofit organizations.[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and, in some situations, fully competitive markets.[3][4] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which they exchange assets, goods, and services.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

>> No.6734542

>>6734528
Are you retarded? How do you think that is going to change my mind when I already accept that my definition is unorthodox? Do you think I just pulled this definition out of my ass without being familiar with the orthodox definition? Did you even read my last post where I showed familiar knowledge with the more widely used definition?

>> No.6735320

>>6734542


You're a fucking idiot. That's my definition of you. I know its unorthodox, but I define you as a fucking idiot.