What are some philosophical books that BTFO marxism/socialism?

If Veeky Forums loves the western cannon, which is as we all know, a product of the singular genius of the white European Race then why do they support leftism and globalism? Is Trump ( IQ over 150, world class business genius) the only hope for the True Patrician?

stop posting, samefag

> implying bourgeoisie electoral politics

Not samefagging you lefty cunt

interesting fact: Mises literally called himself an "entrepreneurial Marxist" at the 10th anniversary meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society

trying to discredit marx and socialism are telltale signs of a low IQ conservacuck

3/10 bait

Just read Cioran's french works. He puts down utopia in a lot of them.

this would make more sense if you were replying to OP

On the contrary, under Socialism, the true innovators, High IQ enterpreneurs and Patricians, are cucked by and forced to subidize the low IQ masses of poors and mud people.

None, any that have tried or any reading into current philosophy that tries has resulted in maximum pseud. You can use the meme version of Stirner and take a crowbar to the kneecaps of all philosophy, including Marx. Alternatively you could train yourself to think like an ancap mentallity and make everything about how Marx is evil (not sure why though when you could take an objective approach to learning). If you want to go the former route read Economics in One Lesson by Hanzlitt. If you want to go the latter route read Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian and Marxism by Wolff

>the god that failed

Is that written by the same guy who wrote Coldsteel the hedgehog? Because that cringe is top tier

>Libcucks find this attractive

Low t, low bait skills.

>It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
- Adam Smith

Capitalism transformed individual egoists into functionaries of society employed at societies service. Communism is just the logical development of this less developed alienated form of egoism.

Hoppe's literally just a neo-Feudalist
>… gated residential communities are owned by a single entity, either an individual or a private corporation, and the relationship between the community proprietor and his renters and residents is purely contractual. …. Clearly then, the task of maintaining the covenant entailed in a libertarian (proprietary) community is first and foremost that of the proprietor. Yet he is but one man, and it is impossible for him to succeed in this task unless he is supported in his endeavor by a majority of the members of the community in question. In particular, the proprietor needs the support of the community elite, i.e., the heads of households and firms most heavily invested in the community. In order to protect and possibly enhance the value of their property and investments, both proprietor and the community elite must be willing and prepared to take two forms of protective measures. First, they must be willing to defend themselves by means of physical force and punishment against external invaders and domestic criminals. But second and equally important, they must also be willing to defend themselves, by means of ostracism, exclusion and ultimately expulsion, against those community members who advocate, advertise or propagandize actions incompatible with the very purpose of the covenant: to protect property and family.

>Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They—the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism—will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

There honestly aren't any.

Das it rad

A history book.

So this guy isn't even arguing for the positives of capitalism anymore, just hoe to maintain the system and keep the elite on charge. What sad sacks read this crap

Fools, Frauds and Firebrands - Roger Scruton
Look up his sources.

This desu senpai

That dude just ends up sounding as bias and as baty as the guys he's writing about. And that's not a critique of Marx's theories, only 20th century thinkers like existenalists and structuralists

Denial, Rationalization, and the Administered Price Thesis by Dr. Gyun Cheol Gu
Pricing decisions and the neoclassical theory of the firm by M.R. Lucas
The Death of Economics
by Paul Ormerod
Economic Theory of the
Leisure Class by Nikolai Bukharin

Pic definitely related

>no Hayek
You'll definitely want to read "The Road to Serfdom" by him.

Le literal big tobacco shill. Jpg

this

Road to serfdom, Hayek
Capitalism and freedom, Friedman
No point going with Adam Smith really desu, Keynes made him fairly redundant

Literally any book of 20th century global history.

Marxism is an infallible ideology.

>implying history books don't exist
>implying socialists can face the price calculation problem

You marxists are the new christians

Master and Margarita

the only people with valid criticisms of Marx are the anarchists, the only people with valid criticisms of most things are the anarchists

do communists actually view this image as anything but pathetic?
it was laughed at when it actually happened

Came here to post this

Too bad the only valid thing they produce is criticisms

You might want to start with blowing the fuck in about whatever ideology you think you support, before trying to blow some concepts you've heard of on the internet the fuck out.

OP the only critiques of marxism that are any good come from the left.

you can use marxism to BTFO socialism.

I don't know of any book that critiques Marx's actual methodology, only his conclusions

this is unattractive af t b q h

what reality do you operate in

>>implying history books don't exist

Where did he imply that?

The Uses of Pessimism - Scruton

Not philosophical but economics:
Capitalism and Freedom - Friedman
Road to Serfdom - Hayek

How is Adam Smith redundant when his core ideas make up the backbone of every thinker you mentioned, including Marx? By your logic didn't Keynes basically make Hayek and Friedman, neo-classical thinkers, also redundant?

the "I fell for the French mental masturbation post-structuralist leninspeak edgelord" post-sooperdooperhyperreality

>price calculation problem

Are you telling me capitalism doesn't work when you don't do capitalism? Holy fucking shit, stop the presses!

It sounds to me like you have not read any of the works you make an ad hominem attack on. Your point is invalid. Board, no need to listen to these people making fallacious assaults on things they don't understand.

neoliberalism is bad

It's impossible to btfo Marxism because there is so much that is true within it. Every crtitcal analysis of Marxism I've read bar one show a complete and utter misunderstanding accidental or wilfully. Part 1 of schumpeters capitalism socialism and democracy is the only decent critique I have ever read.

You are using bukharins defence of capital against an Austrian as something against Marxism?

This.

Alternatively, you can opt for the nuclear option: Max Stirner.

>Can someone please validate my opinion?

...

If you've read Capital, then this:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx_and_the_Close_of_His_System

I'm assuming OP is unread enough to not know who he is so that he might actually read a fucking buck and realize that what he's looking for doesn't exist.