What book should I read to put all capitalists on suicide watch?

What book should I read to put all capitalists on suicide watch?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=y_Q4019fEjo
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/for-ourselves-the-right-to-be-greedy-theses-on-the-practical-necessity-of-demanding-everything.pdf
plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
youtu.be/nKWqvXUoF5o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Nothing really, there's no reason to believe it won't just evolve into another class structure after capitalism.
There's literally always going to be someone smarter.

Reading any book is a blow against Capitalism

>another /pol/ retard who has seen the picture from reddit

>There's literally always going to be someone smarter.

Literally me

Kapital
The State and Revolution
Supreme Object of Ideology

youtube.com/watch?v=y_Q4019fEjo

just watch this video and get enlightened, and the mini video released after this one as addings to this

I don't know if this was a >meme or >irony but it made sense to me. When everything today bears the veil of consumerism, commercialism and so on, it's easy to forget (and most do) to try and actively better yourself, improve and learn something. You see it daily, those apps that track progress to just make you feel like you've done something, somewhat an extended instat gratification. And small talk these days is rarely 'small' (how's life/weather/etc) but more circle-jerkatory -- that is, high school studets idealise the 'thug', the rudeness to your professor, the skipping of classes, overdrinking, smoking or shallow materialism (I love your boots! That's a sick kick, brah!). And older people are too tired of working 9-5 24/7 to even read. TV is, as it clearly is, the quick way to loosen the nerves.

Reading a book is fighting capitalism.

I legitimately can't tell if this is satire or not. Help.

Then you need to go back to /pol/

I don't subscribe to the /pol/ bogeyman theory, sorry user.

>I don't identity as this so don't call me that

Hypocrit that you are

That pic is dumb as fuck. Marx sees esclavism, feudalism and capitalism as historically necessary social organizations and, therefore, those who could satisfy better the exigences of population given X material conditions. Marx's oposition to capitalism didn't intended to be a preference or anything in which moral or individual judgements matter at all when it comes to the bigger picture.
tl;dr Marx didn't see no system as a contingence whose equally contingent flaws would be solved via revolution.

Classic communist. Always resentful against the successful first before helping the poor.

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes.

take the roi-pill

Bakunin
Goldman
Kropotkin
de Cleyre
Stirner
My forthcoming novel desu

Agreed

Wouldn't Monarchism be the purple pill?

Varg go back to making black metal again

>That pic is dumb as fuck. Marx sees
Marx is Marx.

I love how /lit is the the least well read board on Veeky Forums.

If any of you pulled your head out of your frankfurtian asshole you'd realize that capitalism is the only stable economic system that creates wealth.

Both communism and an-cap (which are two opposite sides of the spectrum) are imperfect, purely because men are imperfect. However, since capitalism leads to decentralization, any one corruptible person can only do so much harm.

Two of those comments were anti-communist senpai.

how about nah
also your pic is shit-tier /pol/ bait

>not an argument
yeah

>not an arguement is not an argument

How do communists justify stealing from other people? That's all the forced redistribution of goods is and they the nerve to call capitalist greedy. At least they're not trying to use government force to take what they haven't earned.

How do capitalists justify stealing from other people? That's all the stolen surplus value of goods is and they the nerve to call communist greedy. They're also trying to use government force to take what they haven't earned.

>centralisation is bad
>communism is bad
>kek

Shut the fuck up

>everyone will just magically rearrange themselves and oppose all froms of hierarchies

You need some form of force to enforce your dumb rules.

what about something like a transition state?

Anyone who managed to get into leadership roles of that state wont give it up, there is a reason they're leading the state, and it aint because they dont want power.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/for-ourselves-the-right-to-be-greedy-theses-on-the-practical-necessity-of-demanding-everything.pdf

What communists routinely call theft isn't actually theft. When I put up my own money and take the risk to buy land and manufacturing equipment to make a product that may or may not sell I am not stealing from my employees who get paid regardless of whether I do. There is no government coercion in this voluntary transaction so there simply is no "stolen surplus of goods.". I know Marx had a tough time understanding but just try really hard. It is not theft when employees agree to a specific wage and get paid that wage, it would be theft if when my company failed my employees also had to shoulder the costs of my failure like it does with communism.

>Not THE family guy though
Fucking Varg

>Lets go back to primitive capitalism

Friggin goldbugs. Your fetish is tiring.

I'm not clicking your bullshit. Use your own words or don't bother.

>Creates wealth
Holy ideology Batman!

Sorry for expecting too much of you, who am I for thinking that right-wingers could read?

The Cheka did nothing wrong; Nicholas and his aristos had it coming.

>However, since capitalism leads to decentralization, any one corruptible person can only do so much harm.
THIS.

I really enjoyed reading Hayek and Friedman. Freedom is the freedom to compete.

Why are leftists so delusional?
central planning FUCKING sucks ass

I expect people to be able to defend their own principles. If you just want to trade links I could give you a hundred different articles tell you how stupid communism is but that wouldn't be very productive and you know that.You're not confident in your beliefs and that's okay, but don't pretend you're better than anyone.

The best system, would be a central world government, and then various states which formulated their own laws and cultures, but which all absolutely agreed to abide by the central authority of agreeable law (perfect sensical, unbiased international law (so that one state couldn't make murder for fun legal; I would begin to say, unless everyone thought they should be allowed to do so, but then this might just inspire them from kidnapping people from other states to replenish their ever draining stock of citizens)

Every one in the world would be notified that this is the game plan: everyone would receive a brochure of all the different states all made up of citizens pursuing living under their own ideals.

The only difficulty, as apparently always, would then be resources

inb4 this is the stupidest idea ever. No, you are the stupidest idea ever

i never said we needed to go back to gold standard/mercantilism/bartering

If you linked something, and if I linked something, both of us reading them, we could both be actually learning. But you're being lazy so it's time to bring out the hard-hitting Veeky Forums rhetoric to make it seem like you win whatever competition is meant to be happening.

tbqhfam as long as mountain dew, fast food, cheetos, vidya, mlp, and welfare exists, color me happy and you capitalists can count on me

this, desu

>central planning FUCKING sucks ass

Most companies themselves are centrally planned are they not?

The president is relatively a central planner, congressional vote is relatively central power

Tl;dr: I'm too lazy to actually type a defense

>capitalism is the only stable economic system that creates wealth.
>>creates wealth

this my friend is exactly the problem

>this post

Better be ironic

Just read "The Right to be Greedy" ok?

property is metaphysical drapery disgusing real labor relations which are exploitative.

What is it about communism that always leads to innocents dying I don't get it?

In what way is a voluntary contract between two people exploitative?

>What communists routinely call theft isn't actually theft
no one calls it theft unless you are shit posting on the internet.

>When I put up my own money and take the risk to buy land and manufacturing equipment to make a product that may or may not sell I am not stealing from my employees who get paid regardless of whether I do.
this is why no start ups in the world has ever forced unpaid overtime, no start up has ever failed and screwed over the worker, and every failed company has always paid the worker a fair wage. you are so ideologically away from reality it hurts.

>There is no government coercion in this voluntary transaction so there simply is no "stolen surplus of goods.".
i know where this is going

> I know Marx had a tough time understanding but just try really hard.
marx would have called you a fucking retard

>It is not theft when employees agree to a specific wage and get paid that wage
yea clearly sweatshop workers should just not take the jobs if they don't like the pay they are given. let's just ignore how that is literally not an option for most people in the world if you want to afford housing, food, electricity and utensils.

>it would be theft if when my company failed my employees also had to shoulder the costs of my failure like it does with communism.
like the wall street bailouts? like how start ups are known for not paying workers unless they are succesful (which most of them aren't)? like firing employees, taking away their living wagers, to outsource so the few leading can make more money?

fucking an-caps man go outside for once you fucking nerd.
also i'm going to sleep feel free to argue with the air if you want.

mixed economy, senpai
u think the govt can really set all dose prices?

this t b h

The people who under-write, analyze, trade, and sell securities already largly plan production.
Capitalism by inventing share-capital slowly socializes [in a undemocratic manner] ownership of the economy. Privately owned capital has been becoming less and less relevant for over 100 years. Central planning is just the despotic hegemonic rule of the 1 last surviving capital.

A mixed economy cannot prevent the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Governments are impotent in the face of market forces.

The value put into the company by the labourers doing labour is far less than what they receive in wages, and the capitalist class (Bourgeoisie, 1%, whatever term you like) pocket the difference.

Your first problem is assuming that any capitalist is an innocent

Goddamn i am so triggered. 8/10 bait user, consider a career on writing fiction.

I wish you wouldn't write like a retard. It's against the law to force unpaid overtime because get this, forcing people to do things is immoral and illegal. It's also illegal to contract labor and not pay them, even if the business fails. The employees are the first ones to get paid during a bankruptcy and the employees aren't forced to bail out the companies like they would under communism. The employees are not on the hook for any debts incurred by the employer.

Let's talk about them government bailouts. The government forces banks to give loans to people even if those people couldn't possibly pay them bank which directly caused those banks to default. Since the government forced them into those transactions it is only right for the government to cover the cost, which they did. This is called crony capitalism. A capitalist solution to this problem would have been to not cause it in the first place. Capitalism wouldn't have forced the banks to give out any loans and wouldn't have been forced to bail the banks out. This is just another example of why government coercion is bad and it works against your case as a communist.

Nobody is forcing them to work for anyone else. As an employee you have the power to negotiate your own wage, take it or leave it. This is not in any way exploitative and you haven't demonstrated any reason to think it is. This is freedom.

Meant for

Hypersphere

...

good rebuttal

Assuming you're asking in earnest: There is no one book. Obviously Marx's Capital is the big classic text but it's still older. That said really give Capital a try even if it's through something like Harvey's Reading Capital or going through articles like SEP[1] (it's not an easy text to break into). Really understanding it, however, is hinged on two factors: intellectual honesty and experience. If you're outside the material reality of the working class or aren't able to sympathize with the working class because that's an inconvenient and compromising position then you'll just hate it or forget it.

1: plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/

>tbqhfam as long as mountain dew, fast food, cheetos, vidya, mlp, and welfare exists, color me happy and you capitalists can count on me

And what if you were a 15 year old working 12 hours a day in a sweatshop for a small pittance? You are but a cog in a vast machine of oppression, completely alienating from any true humanity

You HAD the power to negotiate wages, but collective bargaining has been all but eliminated in the past 20 years or so. Also, the power to "take it or leave it" is meaningless when ALL companies offer a wage less than the value of your labour. You have to take a job with one of them, otherwise you'll be impoverished and likely homeless; in this way they have a gun to your head. The "choice" is between an exploitative relationship I(i.e. a minimum wage retail or fast food job) and a slightly less exploitative one (i.e. a 9-to-5 cubicle farm job) with no non-wageslave option.

How do capitalists justify stealing from other people? That's all the forced redistribution of profit is and they have the nerve to call workers greedy. And they use government force to take what they haven't earned.

Fact

>In what way is a voluntary contract between two people exploitative?

Option A: Sign this contract
Option B: Die

>since capitalism leads to decentralization

>You have to take a job with one of them

You would have to take whatever job is available under communism but not with capitalism. If nobody wants to pay you what you think you deserve you have every right to start your own business. This option is not available under a central control.

There is no gun involved with people not offering you the wage you desire or you choosing not earn it. There is a gun involved when the government tells me I have to work at a certain place or that I can only earn a certain amount or when I have to rely on them to let me start my own business to compete in the market.

>u think the govt can really set all dose prices?

the prices would be the lowest, the government would not set prices, they would know the natural prices based on the actual explicitly given statistics of supply and demand.

>As an employee you have the power to negotiate your own wage
>take it or leave it.

Think about this for a second

In what way are they stealing from people? I probably already answered your objection here

Someone post this in the badphil sub onegaishimasu.

A gun is there and it's call wages. You work or you die.
>you have every right to start your own business
Jesus

A negotiation isn't really a negotiation if you don't have the power to walk away. Under capitalism you have that power, if you don't like the wage you're offered you threaten to go somewhere else, or actually go somewhere else and take your skills with you. This is not the case with communism. There is no negotiation, you either work there or you go to prison.

There is no compulsion to work for any wage you don't desire. You can go somewhere else, you can start a business, you can do whatever you want. Where is the gun in this?

oh what a great system
maybe the USSR could implement it and eliminate all these lines for bread and toilet paper

>This thread
Why do champagne socialists think the working class cares about their plight to afford SanFran rental prices?

>Worker produces materials for commodity's production.
>Worker makes commodity.
>Worker sells commodity.
>Worker transports commodity.
>Worker maintains the building that stores the commodity.
>Capitalist receives all the earnings generated by the sale of the commodity and then dolls out a wage to workers a fraction's worth of the time and labor actually put in.

That's closer to actual theft than redistribution of goods/money. Unless you're one of those "taxes = theft" kind of persons.

the kingdom of god is within you by leo tolstoy

>There is no compulsion to work for any wage you don't desire.
Must be nice to be afford this kind of delusion.

Starting a business requires startup capital, which you get either by working for an existing company first (for whatever wage they choose to offer) or by having it loaned from a venture firm, which will then attach all sorts of strings to your income if you even manage to make any (sucess rates for startups aren't particularly good; for every Apple there's a hundred failed tech corps no one's ever heard of). Either way the odds of the labourer receiving a fair portion of the value generated is low.

>Implying I'm not posting on my cigarette break at the loading dock

In exchange for this the employees get financial security. When the company fails or when the stock prices drop there wages don't also drop. They get paid exactly what they agreed to regardless of what happens. If you don't like tradeoff you don't have to partake, you can start your own business or grow your own food. Nobody is forcing you to work for anyone else under capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't offer one "the power" to be homeless vagabonds, kid.

"The species began in poverty" -Thomas Sowell

youtu.be/nKWqvXUoF5o

Take that you fucking commies!

Can you give me an example of somebody being forced to work a job in America? Like is there a construction worker out there that doesn't want to be a construction worker but he can't quit because the government will send him to prison?

I don't like equating food from slave masters to technology bought on the free market for reasons that should be pretty fucking obvious
how i hate these idiotic strawman cartoons

Capitalism literally doesn't work unless there's a labor class that's forced to sell its labor. Yes, forced. Because "not eating" is quite obviously not a choice.

BASED Dr. Sowell will shoo away the many spooks in this thread

Is there a law that stops people from growing their own food or something? The choice is not to work for McDonald's or die. The choice is either to improve your own skills and make yourself more valuable to an employee or you can make you own living. There is no compulsion.

He can't quit because he can't get a higher-paying job, because those jobs require higher education or training his parents couldn't afford to give him, because THEY were construction workers who couldn't quit because they couldn't get higher-paying jobs, and so on and so on.