Does this board read libertarian or capitalistic literature?

I mean I did read like half of The Doctrine of Fascism. Shit was pretty hilarious.

I read Marinetti's "Futurist manifesto", it's fascist so techically capitalist. Does that count? I also read articles from bourgeois news outlets.
On a serious note though, it's a bit silly to present class struggle as an ideological debate between two sides. One of them benefits from economically exploiting the other. I don't care too much about hearing the former's bullshit justifications for this.

I used to read both. Now I can't stomach it.

Attached: 1f3f8131ddce072f14ed92e85ac437facbeb7df5ac4743c8aac2077396fb0d11-1.jpg (1024x698, 80.65K)

An understanding of neoclassical economics is necessary for debunking it.

So Marx is biased but capitalist-shill literature isn't?

Attached: 2da17ffab6b6cba0d2a61ef2e6e978e67c5ebfddb76d9d77b6b03e5eccef8f7b.jpg (825x1035, 180.45K)

I do still enjoy Adam Smith though.

/thread

Attached: smith_taxes.jpg (1018x720 13.78 KB, 151.95K)

I read a bunch of Ayn Rand when I was a dumb high schooler. I plan on reading some Mises and Hayek once I'm done with books that are far more relevant and important, like Das Kapital and many other Marxist texts.

Most non-Marxist literature is bourgeois, so I have to read a fair bit of it. Currently reading some Baudrillard on the side, and while he "critiques" capitalism, he's bourgeois. I plan on reading Smith, Ricardo, and similar classical economists, and will do so before I waste time on ancaps and neolibs.
As well, I watch capitalist TV and movies, look at capitalist billboards, and listen to capitalist music just like you do. The majority of media I consume either by choice or involuntarily is capitalist propaganda, it stands to reason that I'm already getting "both sides" even if I never pick up any ancap lit in my life.

i stopped reading kids books a while back, user.

This

Forgot Pic

Attached: mao books.jpg (850x400, 46.93K)

No but I do like to read anti-civ/anprim literature even if I'm not anprim.

You might as well not read any philosophy either, because Gautama Buddha btfo'd all attempts at understanding reality through structures or categorizations by asserting that "Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form."
Pyrrho of Elis, Hume, Kant, Camus, and Lyotard all arrived upon the same conclusion.
What's the point of trying to distinguish between things if we can never feel assured of our knowledge of the nature of things?

I used to read a bunch of Austrian economists back when a I was a lolbert, but I can barely revisit them without laughing now.

Philosophy is the pass-time of the bourgeoisie

I read mainstream economics. Important stuff. There is no such thing as a capitalistic literature, and libertarian is a meme.

"capitalist literature" is literally dumb shilling based on the mainstream economic theory. It was different in the past since writers used to shill for classic economics now they shill for neoliberal economics.
Eitherway it's best just to read just the economic works.
And to properly understand marx it's mostly necessary to read some classical economists. modern economics are shit tho, not even worth bothering.

Unless you plan on just killing everybody who disagrees with you (fat chance), you should at least understand your opponent's viewpoints in order to engage them with better arguments.

Yeah just like those fuckers Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, can you imagine they wrote whole books about philosophy hahahahah
Marx even wrote dissertation about the greeks hahaha nigga just kill the burgs that's it

Attached: too smrt.jpg (680x598, 54.42K)

It's important to read the enemy's literature in order to facilitate tearing it to shreds. As Marxists we are marginalized and in a constant uphill battle, so it helps if you have enough literary clout to be confident that you never get taken off guard in discussion. Be the smartest guy in the room, and that's easier if you know more of the intellectual foundations of your enemy's position than they do.

Hegel BTFO'd that shit a while ago. Nothing is. Being and Nothing. Becoming. Etc. No ones proved him wrong yet

I read Locke last month. Using a Lockean basis it's pretty easy to argue that Stalin did nothing wrong except not nuking America. Stealing is grounds for enslavement and property is based in labour, so therefore all who own without working are stealing from those who work, and have therefore entered into a "state of war" with the workers. The workers being the non-aggressors are then justified in enslaving those who have made war upon them, therefore gulaging porky is perfectly fine.

Anything besides Smith and Keynes is a waste of time.

How can you know if you never read it. I mean, even shit you can smell to know you won't like eating it, but Understanding ideas/philosophy is another level, isn't it?

"Water is wet,
people die,
my favorite color is green
I wish to play RDR2"
Is my literature biased?

I've read some of the source code for the libetarian/liberal NPCs, but it's really terrible coding.

Yeah your story is biased because it's trying to prove the point that unbiased stories exist. No other reason to write it.

Your taste for mediocre overfunded games isn't a political opinion.

Adam Smith is the foundation of liberal economics (and he thought capitalism didn't work)

This is the answer of a cultist faggot, Marx himself read Smith you total fuckface. He built on his work for the most part. Kill yourself

I study market economics so yes.

Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, etc.

Attached: fd555b87.jpg (700x983, 77.15K)

Reports can be written that only report facts in a dispassionate manner, reality contrary to popular belief has no bias.

And sometimes a book is best presented in this way. For instance if I want to know about daffodils and how to grow them, I want hard data about what climate they prefer and what kind of soil and fertilizers I need to use and how often I need to water them, all of these are objective facts and not opinions . I don't want or need a book that waxes poetic about how lovely a field daffodils is when you look at them when you are in love. That is an opinion…

Dispassionate unbiased opinionated literature exists

This is bad Marxism. Marx's theory is a critique of political economy, i.e. it's foundations are the critical examination of bourgeois science. You cannot understand Marx without engaging in this critique yourself, and to this end, the best thing you can do is read modern economic theory. Otherwise you'll never understand the relevance of any of his positions.

HEALTH WARNING
Read Megan McArdle if you want to inject the distilled capitalist ethos into your veins, and really understand how the modern porky thinks (or doesn't)

If Smith were alive today and saw what capitalism has become and done to the planet, would he go full commie?

He'd definitely not be impressed by the current state of things, he saw liberalism as an egalitarian force for good.

with all the red scare disinformation floating around, I doubt it. he definitely wouldn't be dumb enough to drink the Neoliberal kool-aid though, so probably Keynesian.

Also not sure if he counts as liberal, but Ha Joon-Chang is quality.

I did and have done, but I don't anymore because I don't feel like I need to. They've never mounted a convincing argument, just strawman arguments, idealism and arguments based on what they think marxism is instead of what it actually is, and I don't expect them to do anytime soon.