Hi. I'm a right-wing libertarian and criticize the left a lot even though I haven't read much of your literature. So...

Hi. I'm a right-wing libertarian and criticize the left a lot even though I haven't read much of your literature. So, I'd like a list of what you consider essential reads, preferably all easy to read books.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=WRv__wCmkzQ
youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0
critical-theory.com/shit-slavoj-zizek-says-a-lesson-in-madness/
critical-theory.com/zizek-strikes-back-calls-chomsky-empirically-wrong/
youtu.be/OzrHwDOlTt8?t=338
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Of all the digital books I have those ^^^^^^^^^^^ I'd consider to be then "essentials"

Needless to say, no mukes allowed

No mukes? what does that mean?

State and Revolution is essential for the political theory.

Probably something like Value Price and Profit for the economic theory, though I'm not as qualified to give advice there.

Well I mostly have only read libertarian literature, Mises, Friedman, Nozick. What I meant is that most of people who adhere to any political philosophy aren't extremely well-read. You mention conservative right-wing authors which I haven't read, so it's not even just right-wing vs left-wing literature.

The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State is a medium length book which gives a pretty good explanation of the marxist conception of history (historic materialism) and society.

I'm not a liberal, so why would I bother reading things that are incorrect? :^))

I'd recommend Graeber's Debt, at least - it's one of the PDFs that was included. It is both supremely enlightening and quite easy to read, with good flow and clear language.

Really, though, the essential core of the Marxist critique of capitalism is Capital, when all is said and done, and that's something that may be worth reading regardless of its sometimes-clunky nature. Nikolai Bukharin's Theory of the Leisure Class is something I'd add on top of that, which is also among those PDFs.

nice projection you uneducated fucktard.

clearly, you lack critical thinking skills, no amount of reading can compensate.
just go to a Trump rally and criticize people and things you know nothing about like your fellow morons.

What made catposters act like insufferable faggots recently?

You might appreciate this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=WRv__wCmkzQ

Good one.

I'm starting to get the impression that this is just another dumbass goldbuggery book. Is this really worth my time?

You only have one way to know it…

Don't give him shit, he's curious

Tbh, Mises theory isn't compelling enough to plough through an 1000+ page book, but I plan on reading Capitalism and Freedom (though I also think monetarism was one of the stupidest theories to ever come out of economics, and he contradicted himself with the NAIRU).

Not at all. I'm pretty sure that Graeber isn't pro gold standard, and that certainly isn't the point of the book. It's more about how credit and bouillon currency and the various historical shifts between the two have come to shape our modern society, in addition to being a historical and anthropological examination of the concept of debt and the development of impersonal markets & commodity fetishism. It's good stuff, trust me.

He's applying himself. That's something.

All right well, it's just that some user made me waste my time on an hour of G. Edward Griffin lunacy the other day for a radio show that discussed one of its chapters in the second half of the program.

can't teach a fish to fly.

Locke is a good read tbh.

...

It's not projection. Most people suffer from confirmation bias (your clearly emotional response naturally leads me to believe you do too) and tend to surround themselves with information that confirms their ideas. You think this is restricted to the right? You think the majority of the left is well read on pro-capitalist, pro-tradition, etc. literature? I think what I've said is pretty obvious and extremely non-controversial.

Thank you for wasting my life and all the lives of the trees that were sacrificed to record your neoliberal drivel.

Shit, wrong quote, I meant to quote

what's a good chart of all the most influential political literature organized chronologically?

i recomed you check out
>>>/freedu/

i am glad you want to read more theory, or more left wing theory.

To be honest I really don't have any respect for this kind of line of argument. Yes theory can often make for dense reading, but there's nothing wrong in that, not all works have to be dumbed down, the writers have the right to put stuff down the way they feel is best and the readers should aspire to try and reach a level where they can make sense of complicated ideas. Its a good thing to be well read enough to understand academic writing.

Worst case scenario you can always find a parsed down, simplified version of whatever it is you want to read to get an easier explanation of any set of ideas. So for me whenever someone says "leftists are dumb for making their stuff too complicated to read" they're basically just saying "I'm not smart enough to understand this" or "My beliefs will be too challenged if I actually get to grips with this, so I nee an excuse not to read up on it."

An above all else Noam Chomsky is stuff a highschooler could understand try actually reading him.

I was referring to this. youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

I don't think works should be dumbed down if that implies the removal of content but this isn't fiction or anything of the sort, I don't think the aesthetics and posturing should be prioritized over the content especially when it damages how well the content is transmitted to the reader. If you have knowledge that you truly think is true and your goal is to improve the world why make it inaccessible? It's not dumbing down that I'm advocating, I'm criticizing the act of essentially encrypting relatively simple information just to be elitist, appeal to the academics, etc. Besides, if the content of your book is truly complex then there's no need to artificially increase the complexity.

Maybe this is frequently the case but you cannot say it's the case for Chomsky who is an indisputably a brilliant individual.

A lot of what people here call theory reads nothing like academic writing. Even Marx is guilty of playing at prose in many of his works.

ITT: We make fun of and dismiss right-wing "literature"

I'll start.

Mutual Aid: A Factor In Evolution

...

I do not agree with ancaps about much, but this is absolutely true. Too many philosophers write their books for the other philosophers in the salons rather than for anybody who may put it to practical use. The hegelians are notorious for this.

On the other hand you have stuff like Capital which is good about not being prosaic, but it is still extremely complex and uses a lot of jargon. The good thing about Capital in particular is that it explains that jargon at length. The bad thing about Capital is that very quality makes for punishing reading. There is just no simplifying something as complex as the capitalist economic system. Until a person can understand concepts like the "means of production," "capital," and "commodities" there is just no way to understand capitalism in any depth. That justifies the complexity of the writing, I think.

...

I honestly dont beleive that Zizek is a good example of philosophers being too verbose or using too much jargon, he uses movies like "They live" and "Kung Fu" panda to demonstrate his concepts.

critical-theory.com/shit-slavoj-zizek-says-a-lesson-in-madness/

critical-theory.com/zizek-strikes-back-calls-chomsky-empirically-wrong/

There's Zizek's response to Chomsky's remarks in that video. He raises two good points about some of Chomskys positions which are relevant to Chomskys attack on Zizek and Foucalt.

I dont beleive that there are many, if any, academics who deliberately make their works more complicated than needed just for the sake of looking more intellectual or to prevent regular people from reading it. While I obviously beleive that you should make yourself understood as clearly as possible when speaking to joe public with little more than a base level understanding of a topic, I also think there are works which are written in an academic manner because the are meant to be read by other academics and not by the general public. And this is a case where the writers would have every right to use jargon and to express themselves without simplifing the topic, because those reading it are students and/or experts on the topic and it is expected of them to be able to understand it.

There are some topics or ideas that are just inherently complicated and simply cannot be simplified past a certain point. I dont think that people should have an entitled attitude to learning. Education is like getting swole, its a process that wont hapen overnight, it takes time and people need to accept that stuff is always hard to understand at first and you just need to keep reading and teaching yourself until you get it. You cant get "redpilled" on the full length and breadth of marxist or anarchist theory in ten minutes or reading anymore than you can lose five stone in a week.

I also think Zizek isn't a good example as so far what I've read of him and watching him speak has been easily understood (but maybe I'd change my mind if I dug deeper).
Another video of Chomsky talking on this is this one: youtu.be/OzrHwDOlTt8?t=338

Read this book:
Libertarian Communism: Marx, Engels and the Political Economy of Freedom

How the hell does he figure that?

How does Hillary Clinton have more economically free policies than Trump exactly?

the political compass guy always puts politicians way higher and more right than they would be if they actually took the test

if they took the test the results would probably look more like this

Because Trump advocates protectionism and immigration restriction. Most mainstream economists favor free trade and fewer restrictions on immigration. Taxation isn't the opposite of economic freedom - countries like Denmark probably have more economic freedom than the US, but support welfare capitalism with high taxes. This is why people who call these countries socialist are wrong.

Better?

You are in the same boat as him, being a pseudo-intellectual retard and all.

yeah though the names are like really opaque