Just as the Bible is the most important work of religion and the Capital of the economy...

And for the others
>Politics: Either; "Spirit of the Laws", or; "On the Republic/On the Laws"
Sociology is just a form economics + psychology, anyway . . .
>Sociology: The Making of the Modern Mind: A Survey of the Intellectual Background of the Present Age, or; Knowledge Trilogy by Daniel J. Boorstin.
>Psychology: William James - The Principles of Psychology
>Philosophy (As in, I presume, ethics and/or metaphysics): The Atlas of Reality: A Comprehensive Guide to Metaphysics, and/or/; The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the World's Greatest Philosophers.
>For all of the above + Technology: Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud.

Capital wasn't important. The most significant contribution Marx ever made to any field was getting rekt by Stirner, who wasn't a real philosopher.

For sociology, after reading OP again, I would change the most literally "relevant" sociological work to be "Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology".

It's definitely prescriptive, but the Capital was way more influential, only an idiot would deny that.

>Implying the Bible isn't the most relevant work in all of those fields, and in any other one.
Maybe Plato's Republic can come close in the field of philosophy

>descriptive than prescriptive
>bad
you have to be 21 to post here

Capital goes in all fields

Old Testament
Wealth of Nations
95 Theses (yes, it's a political text)
none
none
Plato/New Testament

politics: the republic
sociology: das kapital (again)
psychology: the ego and the id
philosophy: CoPR

Sociology:
On the Social Contract - Rousseau
Democracy in America - Tocqueville
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Weber
Elementary Forms of the Religious Life - Durkheim

>Economy
Either Wealth of Nations or General Theory.
>politics
Republic.
>Sociology
The Raw and the Cooked
>Psychology
Interpretation of Dreams.
>Philosophy
The Republic again.

Actually might be right and the greatest sociological work is The Capital.

Brainlet list

Politics: Art of the Deal
Sociology: Elders of Zion
Psychology: Maps of Meaning
Philosophy: Thus Spoke Zarathustra

topkek

Politics: If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans by Ann Coulter
Sociology: Bell Curve
Psychology: Maps of Meaning
Philosophy: 12 rules for life

Politics: Machiavelli's the Prince
Sociology: the Sublime Object of Ideology
Psychology: Interpretation of Dreams
Philosophy: All of Plato's dialogues

He already did the alt-right 15 yr. old list first. Nice try.

the Bell curve really triggers you guys doesn't it.

You should check out 'Race, Evolution, Behavior' by Rushton. It's the Bell Curve on steroids

>t. hasn't read Anti-Duhring

Triggering people is not a good thing. It's a sign that what you're reading should be avoided like the plague. It's a natural defense mechanism on a board that prides itself on intellectual understanding and comprehension.

is he a geneticist and has he published any research i can read that’s not a book? if not im not interested even a little bit

people mainly believe things for social reasons. Everybdoy knows why the Bell curve triggers people. It's not because they did an exhaustive analysis of its merits

It's because racism=heresy, full stop. No discusion to be had, close your mind.

>CoPR

What meaning?

Wealth of Nations' fundamentals are still part of the economic cannon (unlike Das Kapital's) and Adam Smith influenced Karl Marx rather than the other way around.

Critique of Pure Reason

Actually Kapital belongs in sociology

> economics
> remotely coherent
Jesus Christ materialism is deeply rooted.

>people mainly believe things for social reasons.

Not smart people, and they're the ones who most uniformly reject The Bell Curve. Its most ardent and common defenders are people in insular, homogenous communities who share certain beliefs about racial superiority. Among groups like that, there's certainly social utility to maintaining a belief in that book.

>the ones who most uniformly reject The Bell Curve.
Are people who don't study IQ or psychology at all

Nobody who studies it thinks it's even vaguely controversial.

for example
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

>bell curve is just muh race

>(unlike Das Kapital's)

There's no solid refutation of Das Kapital in the economic cannon.

You're not refuting anything he's said though. The reasons you give are social rather than based on a critique of the books merits and arguments.

Mates, you can't just say it's uncontroversial among researchers and wish that statement into truth. The fact is that it's incredibly controversial. I mean for fuck's sake, the criticisms section of the book's Wikipedia article takes up two-thirds of the page.

It's by no means broadly agreed upon whether the IQ test (any of them) is a true and perfect indicator of human intelligence, and there is no broad consensus concerning cultural influence on IQ tests, or whether IQ is immutable.

Either this or Keynes' General Theory.

Yeah criticism by people like the fucking SPLC, not scientists

Dude you might not be aware of this, but publishing anything about racial differnces is like being pro-capitalist in the fucking Soviet Union. There is an enormous repressive organism that springs up at the mere hint of this and screeches at you from every corner of the humanities, the media, the civil service, and the public education system.

You're once again making a huge strawman about 'perfect indicator of intelligence'. Nobody says that.

They say IQ predicts well for many outcomes, it correlates to general intelligence, and not to cultural outcomes. For example East Asians score higher than Whites. They did not make the IQ tests and they are not brought up in western culture.

If you would read the fucking books all your questions are explicitly addressed.

>Politics
Leviathan
>Sociology
The Protestant Work Ethic or The Social Construction of Reality
>Psychology
Whatever B. F. Skinner's best book is.
>Philosophy
The Critique of Pure Reason

I don't know why people are so scared of Das Kapital, it's like they think it just says "purges are cool, kulaks are poop." It's a very broad work that covers a lot of stuff.

Try jumping in here on the chapters on Primitive Accumulation, i.e. how capitalism began not with prudent peasants saving enough to become bourgeois, but by government fiat through things like the enclosure acts.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm

the bible isn't the most important book on religion. that's like saying Don Quixote (or whatever stupid tome you think is the greatest novel ever) is the greatest book *on* literature.

>Capital wasn't important
factually untrue. there's only a couple of thinkers who come close in creating an intellectual wake. Plato, maybe Jesus.

>Politics: If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans by Ann Coulter
>Sociology: Bell Curve
>Psychology: Maps of Meaning
>Philosophy: 12 rules for life
Whatever credibility this troll had was blown with 12 rules, if not already with Coulter. Probably could have sneaked Bell Curve in if you had stuffed the list with some Stalin or something and posed as a NazBol. Keep it plausible next time.

>BF Skinner
you ever read Chomsky's takedown of Skinner? It's fucking jokes

Yes, there is. Most naturalistic obsrvation reveals that labour value theorydoesn't hold. Even if you didn't go out into the field, the theory behind it is crummy. There are also anthropological arguments against the concets of primitive communism, as described by Marx, and his general conception of linear historical progression. Anyway, not being part of the cannon means not being mainstream. Marxism is still very much a fringe school. Schools actually, Das Kapital has sprouted nearly as many different ideological trends as the Bible.

>Most naturalistic obsrvation reveals that labour value theorydoesn't hold.

Please explain this in your own words.

First we ask ourselves: How much time is a person willing to work for a unit of currency?
How many units of currencies would that person be willing to spend to acquire a certain good? That certain good's production required how much labour time?

It takes two cooks the same time to cook a burger each, with equal ingredients. Sold at different locations and/or to different peoples, and they can fetch a different price.

On the other hand, if one of the cooks were to use purple onions while the other used white onions, and both kinds of onions would take the same labour time to be grown, the respective burgers (which, again, took the exact same labour time to be produced) could also fetch different prices.

Realize that labour time is not a good basis for predicting prices. Realize that any commodity could play the role of labour time in Marx's model, to solve the transformation problem (why finished goods can fetch prices greater than the raw materials that are used to make them).