Think carefully before answering

>Middlesex
>A Boy's Own Story
>The Gay Science

I'm interested to know what change this is meant to bring about.

the bible
critique of pure reason
faust

>The International Jew or Culture of Critique
Will make people question mainstream media

>The Killing of History or Silencing the Past
Will people make question popular history

>Hitler's Revolution
Will people make more conscious about National Socialism

If everyone stayed home and read all three of these this week, there would be a holocaust this year

The first two would develop his analytical faculties, the last would make him a ginormous faggot.

Wouldn't that be the middle one?

>The Bluest Eye
To show how depressingly logical violence always is.

>Brave New World
To show that there's no difference between slaves of pleasure and slaves of freedom.

>No Longer Human
Because not many people read stories without bullshit in them.

Edmund White is a great writer and therefore straight as an arrow. Nietzche's gay.

*rolls eyes*

I think the Holocaust Industry might be taken more seriously than then International Jew or CoC.

>best two answers ITT
>first two answers
>Ulysses in both
Is Ulysses, dare I say, the finest book ever penned?

It's not important, if they are forced to read it anyway

*sighs*

>Rehtoric by Aristotle
>On the Theory of Games and Economics by Jon von Neuman
>Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard

I think thats a pretty rounded base, thoughts?

>>Industrial Society and its Future aka the Unabomber Manifesto
If they have at least half a brain it will only make them question the author's sanity

asked this question on reddit and it's 99% science fiction and required high school reading

proving that most redditors don't read anything past high school other than shit like hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, calvin and hobbes, and how to win friends.

Trying to fit in: the post

Two dogmas of empiricism
The conscious mind by Chalmers
The Odissey

you should be banned for such a low effort b8

The Cheese Monkeys, World War Z, and The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Wean people off art school, zombies, and Shakespeare and they’ll be good to go.

That is literally the weakest argument one can present, even weaker than simply calling the author a faggot.

I mean, Heidegger joined the Nazi party, even the most liberal academics managed to separate that part of his life from his work, because they figured his ideas should be judged on merit. That's right, liberals managed to put aside a Nazi's personal life and assess his ideas--which could well be politically motivated--independently.

You're accusing people of lacking the intelligence to question the author, not even his motives, but the author's character.

But the most important thing of all here is that you can't provide any evidence that there was anything wrong with the author. You're yet another person that cannot form an argument so spouts this dismissive drivel.

This is the oldest trick in the book: calling someone crazy as a form of censorship. Best thing about it is its virality, it worked on you, and you regurgitate it whenever you see the book mentioned.

Pathetic.

> Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence
Starter kit for useful thinking, Walden is too dense for everyone in the world rn.

> Fahrenheit 251
So people learn to be more sensitive to information and medium, coupled with their information consumption habits,

> Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen
So people build a solid real relationship with eating. It doesn't assume you know a huge amount but goes into rigorous detail.

I'm assuming that readership experience is similar to today, a little bit higher to compensate for the fact that people are forced to read the books.

just thought i'd point out the difference since i often hear people talking about reddit and Veeky Forums in terms of the latest meme insults like soyboys and nu males but this is more tangible

*451

>argument
It was more of an insult kiddo

Top Reddit books: The Hitchiker's Guide to The Circlejerk, Circlejerk 451, Circlejerk Farm, Brave New Circlejerk, Bury My Heart at Circlejerk, Anne Frank: The Diary of a Circlejerk, Infinite Circlejerk, A People's History of the Circlejerk, The Phantom Circlejerk, Circlejerk-Five, Where the Circlejerk Things Are, Interview with the Circlejerk, A Tale Of Two Circlejerks, The Lion, the Witch and the Circlejerk, and To Kill A Circlejerk

Unironically Marx’s Capital. His groundwork for economic thought is actually pretty good, and understanding it would do wonders for society.
Confessions of St Augustine, since we need more Catholics.
Les Mis, just for the bit in the first part on philosophy not being any better than religion, and since the world would be better off if we had an understanding of fulfilment, as achieved by Jean Valjean

maybe you could help me, can you recommend some books like waldo and zen but more "advanced" since i've read both of those? thanks

>His groundwork for economic thought is actually pretty good
His economic thought is literally what everyone's been criticizing for the last century, if anything, it's his critique of the social impact of capitalism that's worth reading.

>CofC
>White Identity
>The Bell Curve
No explanation needed.

>/pol/ has invaded Veeky Forums

Yeah, people kind of throw the guy out the window completely. His critique on capitalism is pretty on point, his solution on the other hand...

except that his economic thought and his criticism of capitalism are one and the same in every single instance of his writing. his entire work is critique: both of liberal ideologues and the capitalist society itself. economists have a problem with him because his theories aren't useful to predict phenomena but this does not matter, as they are a critique of political economy, not its theory. his labour theory of value has, if anything, been empirically supported and is logically even more concise.

well Marcuse criticizes capitalism in a similar manner, also fair (I read it as a libertarian and agreed), but his conclusion that we should destabilise power by liberating women, minority groups, and by effeminating men doesn't follow. Criticizing something isn't an argument for your case, since your case might lead to an even worse scenario.

test

>The Capital by Marx
Will stop all that bullshitting about Marx being a Communist
>Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche
People will get the concept of what it means to "philosophy"
>Negative Dialectics by Adorno
Modern Update to the previous books

>The Magic Mountain by Mann

>The Bible

>History of the Peloponnesian War

Depends on what your trying to learn about.
While I was reading Zen, I was trying to learn more about how thought interfaces with body, which I felt was at the crux of the romantic thought patterns in Pirsig's dialectic.
For that I read The Inner Game of Tennis by Timothy Gallwey and then a few other books that ultimately lead me to Mind is a Myth: Conversations with U.G. Krishnamurti. From there I'm working my way backwards now, using easier sources (Alan Watts mostly cause he was in a cool video game, Everything), towards understanding the ideas in mysticism/gnocism even if I don't buy into the whole world consciousness or archetypes.
I'm also reading quite a bit about faith (more the phenomenon rather than Faith with a capital F) now to get a better understanding before I try to tackle a work like Critique of Pure Reason.
Afraid I might not be able to help, I'm quite a pleb myself, still working on understanding a self help book.
What are you trying to learn about?

You can pretty much segment Marx's intellectual endeavours into 3 different stages, that of radical activist Marx, political theorist Marx and economic historian Marx. Truth be told, the last mentioned is by far the weakest.

I put capital on my list because being able to use exchange vs use value, profit being inherently exploitation of workers, historical materialism, and the dialectic(no matter how shaky the understanding) in conversation would massively improve the quality of discourse. I don’t think his ideas are perfect, and almost wholly disagree with his conclusions, but if his ideas were assumed knowledge that would go a long way towards improving public discourse.

>well Marcuse criticizes capitalism in a similar manner, also fair (I read it as a libertarian and agreed)

>but his conclusion that we should destabilise power by liberating women, minority groups, and by effeminating men doesn't follow.

Are you claiming that this is marx' conclusion?

>Criticizing something isn't an argument for your case, since your case might lead to an even worse scenario.

That is not true, capitalism was criticized immanently, it was criticized on the basis of its own proponents and its own workings; things weren't brought from the outside, from the world of ideas in order to attack it, it was attacked on its own merits and its own foundations. In short, capitalism is not the appropriate system to realize humanity, humanity's species-being and potential. Marx precisely didn't show a concise system of what will follow, merely certain principles on which society must function in order to truly realize humanity's species-being: to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability; the free association of producers; the reconciliation of the individual with personhood.

Marx simply thought that it was within capitalism itself that the new society would arise out of, because he had a lot of contact with revolutionary proletarians in Paris and Germany who were convinced of socialism before Marx himself was. He attempted to give the proletarian, socialist consciousness that existed at the time a 'scientific' and philosophical basis. Marx didn't just come up with communism on his own, out of nowhere, as an idealistic imperative - for him there was communism as a movement everywhere, within the proletarians, and that they inevitably would take over. Of course he was wrong about that, but I don't think that Marx offered solutions beyond what he thought was already-existing within proletarian movements.

>profit being inherently exploitation of workers
This is wrong
>historical materialism
This is also wrong

Was capitalism really and totally discarded by Marx though? I would argue it wasn't. This is sort of a meme point, but Marx was fascinated by its dynamism and the power of progress that lies within it

>This is wrong
This is true for logical reasons. Economists do not get that. Exploitation is not a moral category in capital.

>This is also wrong
It is a simplification and abstraction but it allows many correct insights through the simplification.

t. adorno

Yes it was. However, Marx criticized the idea that you could go behind capitalism ever again, that you could reverse its destruction of tradition, morality, even philosophy, social cohesiveness and harmony of the medieval times - like many thinkers at his time were unaware of, including Hegel. He also thought that capitalism created the seeds for a truly emancipated society precisely *through* the destruction and disunity in society it caused wherever it went as well as the technological and productive expansion it allowed. But no, Marx did not think that capitalism itself was good.

What do you mean "true for logical reasons"?

The Neverending Story
Thus spoke Zarathustra
Jungs Aion

This selection, I think, provides something both to the philosophically minded, as well as to people who read stories (((for entertainment))), without knowing that they are constructing their own understanding of reality in this way. Also it addresses the value of the christian heritage, the problem of the death of god and contextualizes the modern subjects search for meaning.

I feel bad about not recommending Hegel's science of logic, but it's not like you could magically make normies understand what he's talking about just by forcing them to read it. Along that same line of reasoning, Educators who think like are the reason children learn to hate poetry.
Even putting Aion might already be stretching it, but I've always found Jung's writing to be exceptionally concise and easy to understand considering the subject matter he tackles.

Every single form of wealth in society is either the result of labour or exists within nature itself. You cannot have wealth without labour. Capital and private ownership is the command over the fruits of labour, its accumulation, the accumulation of wealth and capital, is thus simply appropriation of labour. It merely appears in capitalist society as if labour is not the source of wealth due to commodity fetishism.

The argument that profit is best understood as the difference between a worker’s output and the company’s income isn’t an incorrect idea. Marx decides to say this is exploitation.
I don’t agree with the exploitation part, but understanding this is where profit comes from is important knowledge.

>Every single form of wealth in society is either the result of labour or exists within nature itself.
Ok
>Capital and private ownership is the command over the fruits of labour, its accumulation, the accumulation of wealth and capital, is thus simply appropriation of labour.
But that's wrong. The capitalist is the one who creates the condition for the worker to work in the first place.
I somewhat agree but wouldn't profit best understood as its much simpler definition classic definition of return - cost? Obviously the workers are part of the cost for the capitalist.

I made a fuckton of typos, sorry.

>But that's wrong. The capitalist is the one who creates the condition for the worker to work in the first place.

You mean through his capital that is itself the result of labour? The capitalist does not exist in a vacuum, like an alien who comes out of nowhere with a work opportunity; he has appropriated societal work at one point, has become its owner and master over it, and yes, uses that capital to create conditions in which workers can work. But in this process, more wealth is created by the worker and appropriated by the capitalist.

But understanding that profit isn’t an intrinsic result of business helps with arguments for things like higher taxation to fund a UBI(or social dividend). Pure Capitalism has trouble justifying things like social support nets without an external justification.

appropriation implies it is seized against the will of the worker.

The historical process is already mediated through a continual competition for that position of influence. Give your average Joe a million dollars and he is going to lose it all within a couple years.
The stability of the social structure, with both its liberating and its oppressive elements, within which production chains exist, is reliant upon the discrimination (read, the distinction) between individuals who have the ability and the outlook required to work with wealth in a sensible way and people who should never have a large amount of capital because they wouldn't know what to do with it and would simply end up being exploited.

Re-distributing wealth seemingly gets rid of the hierarchy, with both those parts of it which are justified through differences in competence and those which are not, but the hierarchy of economic understanding still exists. In the ensuing free for all, the capital which you have given into the hands of incompetents is going to be appropriated by the most vile, corrupt parasites of the bunch, whereas even people who are merely competent will be hard pressed to compete if they hold on to their principles, and you will have created a true Hobbesian war of all against all scenario.

The solution to social inequality is cleansing the social structure of its corrupt elements, while still maintaining the hierarchical structure and giving people a better education and helping them to overcome their materialism/hedonism memes.

I shall divide my recommendations between two groups of people.
For the sheep:
>The ConsolationS of Philosophy
>Tom Brown's Schooldays
>Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil
For my minions, or "wolves", who will assist me:
>The Unique One and His Property
>The Complete Works of the Marquis de Sade
>The Immoralist
And lastly, there shall be the curators, my closest companions, who are already sufficiently cultured that they have no need of explicit recommendation. Instead, they will bring their own minds, fresh with its own experiences, to the table. In a world destroyed by the new slave-doctrines, it is necessary to spare some the deluge.

A Naked Lunch
American Psycho
Mr. Grumpy

I don't see the benefit of this regression in which a capitalist (or a person) has no right to his possessions because at one point in history somebody got exploited. Also while "capital" is itself the result of labor, money, which is a fiction representation of wealth, not always is. An obvious example: loans.
What I meant with "the capitalist creates the condition l for the workers to work" are two things. First: the capitalist is almost always a "worker" himself. In small and medium businesses for example the capitalist has some function in the productive chain.
Second: the "capitalist" isn't a single class. If I'm a construction worker and I invest 1000 dollars in a business and at the end of the year I get 1100 dollars in return, I am, in fact, a capitalist, because I'm buying part of the means of production.
What do you mean with "profit isn’t an intrinsic result of business"?

why did this make me laughs so hard

Loana are spéculation on wealth production. It's not about the capitalist having a right or not, in capitalism he sure has, everything is lawful, but capitalism itself in its totality deserves to be overthrown. The issue isn't that wealth has to be redistributed to their rightful owners, although that often is alright, and as that other gentleman has said, yes, it is true that a poor person would lose all his money immediately and there is a skill involved in the accumulation of capital. But all of these are past the real point. The real point is that capitalism as a totality, as a system, is such that it reproduces itself precisely through this appropriation of wealth. It functions only when some capitalist is appropriating wealth and using the capital appropriately, it only functions when few people have power over many. The completely different society would allow human society to reproduce itself without the need of capital accumulation in a few hands; it's about changing the entire rules of how wealth is created and preserved. Either we change evergreen or we are stuck with this situation and misinterpret wealth and power inequality as necessary merely because it is necessary to reproduce this kind of society.

A brilliant and skilled person should no doubt have a bigger part in the wealth of society before post-scarcity reasons. But the only thing that justifies 50% of the world's wealth being in the hands of a few individuals is that it works in order to employ people and create wealth within the edifice of capitalism.

"will" and "subject" means nothing

and nothing is being.

>The Road to Wigan Pier
to get people to understand the logical fallacies of extreme socialism
>The Trial
to get a sense of what livning in a society based on the logical fallacies of extreme socialism would feel like
>Atlas shrugged
To see that capitalists can be idiots too

Why would I want to let people read three of the same books? I would want them to read different books.

>Atlas Shrugged
>The Virtue of Selfishness
>Human Action or something similar

Except I would keep them for myself

culture of critique
moby dick
blood meridian

funny how people who don't explain their choices give these weird lists that basically mean "these are 3 books i like"

>his labour theory of value has, if anything, been empirically supported and is logically even more concise

Kids, this is your brain on ideology

Why the magic mountain?

The Catcher in the Rye three times

Once as a child
Once as a teenager
Once as an adult

Thats not very helpful lol

>Meditations
for obvious reasons
>Industrial Society and its Future
for obvious reasons
>Kybalion
for obvious reasons

One day we'll be a peaceful, spiritual society with minimal technology.

The God delusion
> obvious
Animal farm
> obvious
Illegal wars
> especially for amerifags

>Illegal wars
>especially for amerifags

Sounds like someone is jealous that he can't participate in the preservation of the noble tradition of imperialism.

It appears you got me.

(you) happy

The Bible
-Best book ever written
Rights of Man
-Changed my life
Anna Karenina
My favourite novel

The fully enlightened world breathes disaster triumphant

The Brothers Karamazov
A collection of Freud's works
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

You forgot The Circlejerk In The Rye

some German got a national prize for a study of that kind

The Old Testament
The New Testament
The Book of Mormon

Bush is out of office and the 2000s are over. You can move on now bud

The Spirit of the Laws (Montesquieu)
The gay science (Nietzsche)
The greatest poet in your country language

The Bible
Brothers Karamazov
Paradise Lost
hopefully turns degenerate leftists on to age old religious and mythological ethics

Der Steppenwolf
Siddhartha
Dhammapada

Very short books that could be read in a day or 2.
>Ecclesiastes
How to live with through wisdom.
>Eudemenian Ethics
How to live with through the golden mean.
>Man's Search for Meaning
How to live through meaning. And why the extreme right is bad.

Bonus:
>The Gulag Archipelago
Why extreme left is bad.

Very short books that could be read in a day or 2.
>Ecclesiastes
How to live through wisdom.
>Eudemenian Ethics
How to live through the golden mean.
>Man's Search for Meaning
How to live through meaning. And why the extreme right is bad.

Bonus:
>The Gulag Archipelago
Why extreme left is bad.

You found these through Peterson didn;t you?