/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6889847]

Can anyone recommend me some books that discuss the merits and flaws of marxism/communism/socialism/whatever in a balanced matter that doesn't exaggerate or mischaracterise the arguments for either side?

[Anonymous No.6889895]

I would like to know this also OP

[Anonymous No.6889909]

here's everything you'll need to know.

[Anonymous No.6889949]

>>6889909
>He writes from a conservative and classical liberal perspective, advocating free market economics

[Anonymous No.6889985]

>>6889949
I dont think you can ever get a truly objective argument like OP wants, the only people who are willing to make those arguments are members of some different ideology

[Anonymous No.6889998]

I've never read a neutral or impartial stance on Marx or Marxism. Ever. It's ALWAYS slanted either in favor of or against... And it basically has to be, because Marxism aims to change the world dramatically in ways that you (almost by definition) either love or hate.

Marxists will flame me for this one but I think the 'fairest' assessment of Marxism is Popper's in "The Open Society And Its Enemies."

This piece is critical of Marxism but it (IMO) achieves a better criticism than anyone else did because it's not from a position of hatred--Popper was closer to Marx than to a conservative or reactionary, and he pays frequent compliments to Marx. But his criticisms on a few individual points are brutal. That line (I forget what page it's on), "the man with the gun may very well end up with the money" pretty much demolishes the idea that the fall of the capitalists telologically leads to dictatorship of the proletariat. Obviously, when the moneyed classes fall, a simple caste of military thugs could easily fill the power vacuum, and I think history demonstrates that popper was right here.

[Anonymous No.6890016]

>>6889998
>>6889985
/thread

Many Marxists concede that the most refined argument challenging Marx's theories is Popper's. So if you want, read Marx, read Popper, then pick for yourself.

[Anonymous No.6890362]

>>6889895
Biden's is chill.

[Anonymous No.6890466]

>>6889909
This is a terrible recommendation and you should be ashamed of posting this shit in every thread. Imagine how retarded it would be to say that a bukharin book like pic related is the best introduction to austrians. It's intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.6890478]

>>6889847
You know you can support something and not be biased, right? This whole thread is trash.

[Anonymous No.6891066]

Marx had almost nothing to say about socialism or communism; he was a theorist of capitalism and a brilliant one. He takes the society that is to be constructed by the proletariat for granted, assuming the details will sort themselves out, and focuses his analysis on contemporary political economy. Das Kapital is universally acclaimed and required reading on Wall Street.

Read Marx to understand capitalism, not socialism/communism.

[Anonymous No.6891162]

>>6890016
>Many Marxists concede that the most refined argument challenging Marx's theories is Popper's
No we don't.

>hur dur philosophy is the root of totalitarianism and I'll argue this with philosophy

>>6891066
faggots who think Marx didn't have a conception of communism are dumbasses. Marx sprinkles his conception of what he perceives to be a post-capitalist society throughout his writings, while not explicitly stating such (usually).

The only thing worse than an anti-communist misinterpreting Marx is a communist misinterpreting Marx.

[Anonymous No.6891171]

>>6891162
Any conception he "sprinkles" is too vague to be useful.

There are much better theorists to read on the subject.

[Anonymous No.6891175]

>>6890478
>support something and not be biased
Not when it's as politically charged as Communism.

[Anonymous No.6891178]

>>6891171
>vague
Only because you have shit understanding of dialectics m8.