ITT: books that expose capitalism

ITT: books that expose capitalism

Attached: the jungle.jpg (216x338, 25K)

Other urls found in this thread:

stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2015/02/why-not-worker-ownership.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Attached: 5D60C6F1-C3B2-4D26-8196-6A22B2D5C951.jpg (255x400, 62K)

The book that literally documents what life is like in an industrializing third world country

Did you know that in the early 1900s the United States had;

>No regulations on Food and Drug safety standards
>No factory safety standards
>Child labor
>Child Soldiers
>Substandard housing
>Lack of medical care
>Poverty that would be a human rights violation today

>America is the only country
Britain probably had the same standards during the same period.
What was the margin of time between things like emancipation of slaves and women's suffrage, 1-2 decades.

If any is true it shows the system's reliance on these things for functional operation.

heard of everythjng else but the child soldier one. details?

>itt: Books that expose capitalism but don't present any viable alternative

FTFY

Not so much capitalism but that working in a meat packing plant without safety standards really, REALLY sucks and is quite disgusting.

My favorite part was America’s reaction to this book was not to drop capitalism but instead to clean up the food industry

Well yeah, who wouldn't after reading that. Do YOU want human fingers in your meat?

>My favorite part was America’s reaction to this book was *to try to fix the problem
Yes, that does sound like a good outcome, I can see why it's your favourite part.

That's why they called the book, "a jab at the head that landed in the gut"

Sinclair wanted it to spark a socialist revolution but all he got was a cleaned up meat industry.

Personally I'd still call it a win in my book.

I agree. commies btfo.

>People actually want to go back to the no standards the industry had at this time.
I shake my head.

I don't even mean in that sense, I mean that even if it didn't reach your original goal, you showed people a legitimate problem that needed to be addressed and they listened.

If you want books that present a viable alternative to capitalism, look up “General Theory of Labor-managed Market Economies” by Jaroslav Vanek or “A Future for Socialism” by John Roemer.

Yes, that's the best solution. Industrialization was even worse under communism.

I thought that book just exposed poor cleanliness in factories

Planned economy is not the only alternative to capitalism.

There is literally no superior system than a voluntary capitalism without state intervention.

>Commies think they can steal my stuff and get away with it.
Literally over my dead body and a pile of your dead bodies.

>socialism as a viable alternative to capitalism
Lol no

>socialism
lol no. If socialism was such a viable alternative to capitalism we would have seen it successfully done by now.

Attached: 1520920579544.jpg (1024x1629, 213K)

>Child Soldiers
People lying about their age aren;t 'child soldiers.' Child soldiers are known to be children

What isn't planned, is up to the markets. If the markets are efficient, you get surplus value to save and invest - that gets you capitalism.

Imagine being this naive.
Why would someone in power willingly give all that good shit up for no reason?
There are always better systems out there, they just need a dedicated implementation.

>Why would someone in power willingly give all that good shit up for no reason?
Yeah, lets give the power to the revolutionary vanguard, they'll give all that good shit up for no reason.

t. Standard Oil shill.

Attached: ODPA.jpg (1024x1016, 113K)

Sinclair did no research for the book. It is a complete fabrication.

>In 1904, Sinclair had spent seven weeks gathering information while working incognito in the meatpacking plants of the Chicagostockyards for the newspaper.
It seems I have caught you in a bit of a snafu!

Do you have any concrete arguments a market economy based on worker cooperatives or no? Have you are actually read the books I’ve mentioned?

There can be no capitalism without state intervention. Who will enforce contracts and private property “rights” if not the government?

>Do you have any concrete arguments a market economy based on worker cooperatives or no?
Market socialism is the only form of socialism I could ever see being moderately successful. But most of the socialists I've talked to oppose market socialism because it forces the workers to accept less than the full value of their labor to compete.

Attached: 1521099555320.jpg (900x1273, 692K)

There is plenty of empirical evidence which suggests that worker cooperatives are generally more efficient that hierarchical capitalist firms.

>voluntary cooperation between owner-operators works
cool, are those banned in a capitalist society?

Then why don't we see more of them? There's no laws against forming worker cooperatives in our capitalist economies.

Attached: 1521067629743.jpg (607x607, 37K)

>become a Communist state
>collapse within a decade or become a "communist" autocracy

Every communist state that survives eventually realizes communism is stupid as shit and will permanently retard the economic potential of your country. "Special Economic Zones" are codewords for "Capitalism" because any state run modern economy will become dysfunctional.

Revolutionary Catalonia. Factories closed. Unemployment rose. Eventually, CNT ended up taking control of the factories from the workers and set up slave labour camps.

This book is good

>mfw the best alternatives for capitalism that "anti-capitalists" can come up with is "capitalism but with more regulations and/or more welfare"
Socialism is putrid shit and history has proven this

Attached: image.jpg (547x499, 51K)

stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2015/02/why-not-worker-ownership.html

“Communist state” is an oxymoron

State socialism is the only type of socialism that has been historically tried.

I guess you are right since all the "communist" states are actually completely different forms of government now.

I despise commies but I really enjoyed this book.

This is not true and you're a moron if you believe it

Attached: LpvsbTf.png (555x574, 558K)

A communist society is by definition stateless. You probably thinking of state socialist/state capitalist countries governed by Leninist parties.

Good thing that capitalism led to a vast number of inventions and innovations which solved most of those problems better than government ever did

Marx on the Paris commune:
>The split between the Marxists and anarchists at the 1872 Hague Congress of the First International (IWA) may in part be traced to Marx's stance that the Commune might have saved itself had it dealt more harshly with reactionaries, instituted conscription, and centralized decision-making in the hands of a revolutionary direction, etc.
Lenin's vanguardism is actually the most orthodox intrepretation of Marx.

Attached: t5iehvV.jpg (500x500, 27K)

>To some extent, the premise behind the question is wrong: there are many more worker-owned firms than there are ones quoted on the stock market. Shared ownership is the norm for law, accountancy and medical practices - although they become less egalitarian as they get bigger. And in other cases, substantial worker-ownership is not feasible; I'm not sure workers should own their own oil rigs, for example.
False dichotomy, and needs to be substantiated. The practices he's referring to make up a tiny (and wealthy) minority of businesses, and further, they typically employ secretaries, writers, and technicians on a salary basis, meaning even still many workers do not engage in collective ownership. Most businesses are not listed on the stock market, true, but at the same time most are owned by an individual or a small handful of individuals.

Venezuela: it was socialist while it wasn't horrible.

Parents would make their children do odd jobs on the farm from dawn till dusk. There was literally nothing wrong with hiring a 15 year old to work as a potter 12 hours every day except Sunday. Capitalism is not the cause of the toil that drove him to the city for work, the capitalist merely built a kiln and provided an opportunity that was a little better than whatever he had in the country.

Let's say the kiln starts being used for glass and the boy learns a new technique and decides to go into business with someone and start a furnace of their own. They want to get the most out of their investment so they work 14 hour days. What are they doing now? Exploiting themselves?

Nah, there's literally nothing wrong with capitalism. You just hate freedom.

Attached: 81dunj8+A-L.jpg (1286x1959, 380K)

The individual, of course

hello Plebbit

Maybe we should stop killing them and just let them collapse on their own.

Upton Sinclair wasn't a communist.

Strawman much?

Nice revisionism.

Attached: ancap meme 15.jpg (640x640, 99K)

Not him, but that's bog standard power structure dynamics. There's no amount of rhetoric that would contradict the human condition, as evidenced by the entirety of history.

I think they were only mentioning America because that's where The Jungle was set.

key part being "while it wasn't horrible"

Attached: Venezuela.webm (400x300, 1.55M)

This post sounds like a bunch of buzzwords.

>[citation needed]: the post
everything in your post was speculation

Attached: Carnegie.png (1000x2000, 2.74M)

>power dynamics
>human condition
>human history
>...
>buzzwords

Congratulations, you're retarded!

Any anecdotes about agrarian culture.

my favorite part is the part where you act as though state intervention in markets and the absence of state intervention can both be called "capitalism" therefore making that term meaningless

Neither of those definitions have to do with what capitalism is, brainlet.
Capitalism is when there is privately owned capital. Markets have existed with and without state intervention long before capitalism existed. It was when markets switched from commodities being exchanged for money, and then the money exchanged for commodities, to money being exchanged means of production and labor, which is then exchanged for more money than before, that markets became capitalist, because that is when the commodities and money became capital.
Every developed capitalist country has necessarily had massive state interventions to develop - tariffs, subsidies, central banking, etc.

*to money being exchanged for means of production and labor, which produce commodities, which are then exchanged for more money than before

It was no more of a strawman than .

So capitalism is as old as blacksmithing?

which totally would have happened without pressure from regulation, right?

And you can't own a home without state intervention. Who would police the brigands and thieves if not government?

Do you have a point to make?

Attached: War_Is_a_Racket_(cover).jpg (220x318, 24K)

Is this a serious post? Not to even address that it has nothing to do with the thing it quoted, but the second question has been answered different ways throughout history.

Cooperatives are the future!

Yes.

Didn't know he wrote a book.

For the most part, yes. The 40 hour work week, the vaccine, and industrial production of ammonia are just a few capitalist inventions that revolutionized the world's standard of living.

>what is Kowloon Walled City

>Who would police the brigands and thieves if not government?
The other brigands and thieves, that would eventually set up protection racketts.

Did 1930's Germany have this?

>Do you have any concrete arguments a market economy based on worker cooperatives or no?
Yeah.
It's my fucking property and I'm not turning it over to a "worker's cooperative".

>claiming credit from 2 inventions
And google why people celebrate Labour Day dumbass.

Attached: 1519450496666.png (258x239, 100K)