Alright, you fuckers are getting to me...

Alright, you fuckers are getting to me. I went from being an edgy faggot right-ancap to a left-wing market anarchist a while ago. I've been reading about libertarian socialism but I just can't wrap my head around it a lot of aspects of it, especially from an economics perspective. Is there something I can read that addresses the economic concerns of former/confused capitalists?

Other urls found in this thread:

No, because Left economics have historically been a tragic failure and any new spin on it will be literally 100% theoretical.

What have you read so far?

Fuck off already parasites

Communist Manifesto, the Conquest of Bread. I was going to read Capital next, any other recommendations?

I'm not sure where your issues lie. Is it market based libsoc you're struggling with, or other forms of non-market econ?

What the hell is that image even trying to claim? The USSR and all its slaves were ran according to a crappy planned economy and failed to keep themselves afloat. You can't just blame the failure of the planned economy to accomplish anything beyond "build a ton of heavy industry" completely on the outside world.

Read Capital, but read "Value, Price and Profit" and "Wage Labour and Capital" (both by Marx) first; they are both short, and don't feel like you have to understand all of either of them, but they will help you when you then start on Capital.

Another good text on economics to read is "Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism" by Lenin, as it not only explains the economic development of pre-WW1 imperialism, but through doing so elucidates a lot of Marxist economic ideas in general.

Mainly non-market econ, and even market socialism. I don't know anything about them at all, except that according to libertarians they don't work.

Thanks, I'll do that.

Thanks, I'll read those.


For market socialism, you should read Proudhon, just start with What is Property, and if you want more after that read his correspondence with Bastiat to see where the main difference with ancap would (mostly) lie. For more modern texts, you should look into Kevin Carson.

As for non-market econ, Capital isn't really useful, but if you're going to read it, read it through David Harvey. For a historical perspective on non-market econ, read Graeber's 'Debt: The First 5,000 Years', and since you've already read Conquest of Bread, I suggest reading Mutual Aid for a more technical perspective on a hypothetical ancom economy.

Markets not Capitalism is a good read for left-wing market anarchists.

If you still like ancap theory and want to see it used for anti-capitalist ends I would recommend looking into Agorism.

Agorism stuff.

Read Markets Not Capitalism.

Fug. Should've read the thread.



Proudhon also did some nice theory regarding banks

left market gang represent

good to have you on board m'ego

As you're libertarian, definitely read Proudhon, then Bakunin. And Kropotkin if you want to go really left.

about bloody time we had more market anarchists in here.

I was going to recommend you some, but the lads have provided you with some quality source material.

No there isn't. Economics is all bullshit and a waste of time. Wheater on the left or on the right everything is bs.
The only two things you need to know is that there are people and there are resources. You then use the resources for the people.
That's all you need to know about economics.

It sounds like you are desperate for something meaningful in your life and just desperately latching on to anything.

I wouldnt normally say this as Im not religious myself but you need jesus.



Why do you people, OP including, like markets so much? What's the appeal aside for muh freedums?

Read Debt:the first 5000 years

Why do muslims hate markets so much they drive a truck in to them?

The same way MLs or marxists in general argue for the historical necessity of the state through dialectics and al that, the same can be argued for the market.

Markets are a tool, nothing more, unlike "an" caps who belive market exchange is axiomatic, it is an intelligent move to use markets when necessary, and other types of production when not, hence the term free'd markets

Read Solution of the scoial problem by Proudhon

You have no right to use the state, ie other peoples money by taxation, to protect property you otherwise do not even use (ie hold onto while impoverishing others).


Because there are not enough Aloha Snackbars(tm)?

Mutualism is soild 10/10 already you have reached enlightenment.

Read some history you worthless fuck.

is mutualism making a comeback?

We've always been here
Just a bit more quiet, since any talk of markets gets shut down rather quick here.

and if you dont want to gulag all evil racists then you must be Holla Forums

Read "Markets not Capitalism" and "Debt the first 5000 year" both books will show you how capitalism is anti market in it's logic

Left market anarchists are based af but the theory needs so working on here and there

You're still edgy for being an anarchist

Once you grow out of it you can call yourself and adult.

What if you like markets and just want to shoot everyone from Holla Forums?

Do I still get >>>/gulag/ ed?

I'd say no because I like the second part so much.

Read some RD Wolff

Can you give me a rundown of how capitalism is anti-market?

As in, capitalism is what prevents truly free markets?


Capitalism can't exist without a state to fight competition and enforce arbitrary property rights like land ownership and IP. Markets in Capitalism are by definition, distorted from a real exchange.

A market doesn't require a state because it's just a method of exchange, and without a state, it comes out much more horizontal than a "Capitalist Free Market", which is anything but "free".

The logic of the capitalist structure is anti markets, the logic of both is radically different both economically and psychologically.

Capitalism: people using money to get commodities to get more money

Markets: people using commodities to get money to get more commodities

Mutualist posters are so fucking based!

I disagree completely, are you seriously proposing there will be no legal issues between firms? Who is going to initiate force to…enforce legal proceedings? What about tracking externalities like human induced pollution? The idea of a stateless market is ludicrous when Ancaps advocate for it, the same to you. Crime will go up as housing density increases as people are forced to move to where jobs are since roads aren't being built where there is no incentive to maintain them.

Legal issues between firms are their concern, not the market's, its up to them to initiate force, it wouldnt make economical sense to coerce force unless the expenditures are less than the total loss as a result of said agreement

You have to understand that, unlike ancaps, market anarchists do not defend property rights, thus the idea of a "firm" as a private entity is impossible

Roads and railroads can be built by worker co-ops who labour on both the construction and public transport sector

Crime wont go up as crime is a direct result of property rights and capitqlism, criminals will be able to join a co-op and take turns to labour, besides, the lack of a state means people will be armed for their protection, besides, most criminal activties criminals currently engage in are not violent crime, things like drug dealing, gun sells, and so on wont be illegal, it wont have to exist as a black market



This is literally voluntaryist logic except you didn't use the word "capitalism" so it's not right-wing.


Bump let the central planing cuck get butthurt


Is there a Stirner reading guide?
No, seriously.

This is your brain on anarchism, folks.

What did he mean by this?
Is he basically saying that people with families are mindless normalfags?

planned economies don't work well

Neither do market economies.

But market economies failures are inherently part of the system and the people in the system, while the failures of a planned economy is the failure of the planners. Hence, if you have a good planner, it can work better than a market economy.

And be honest, we all know that organisation and centralized standards get shit done better and more efficiently than competing entities.

they have incnosistensies and externalities, but they're far more efficient than planned economies

Whats your definitition of efficient? Having multiple companies do double research and having seperate supply lines, thereby losing out on economy of scale, or not having all the information they could have, thereby always missing out on the most efficient supply lines and markets? Or perhaps spending shittons of cash on marketing and stuff, thereby wasting labour and resources that could be spend on producing more, better or more efficiently?

just take a look at history, I know people here like to pretend the cold war never happened, but the west largely won because they were economically superior

Not an argument. The west had lots of colonies and ex-colonies that it still had control over and exploited.

Well you are half right, planed economies are shit but today technology may make us able to rack down every aspect of the economy from production to consumption BUT why going into this distopiain path when you can have markets with workers control over the means of production as you rode to communism.

Here we have to remember when the USSR tried to abolish markets and instead turned everyone into slaves to be ordered into jobs via the state itself.

We're not talking about specific examples after all, we're talking about which system is better. Markets or planning.

We're not talking about specific examples after all, we're talking about which system is better. Markets or planning.>>1210993
Because to reach communism you need to abolish money. Which you can't do with markets. So you need to plan the economy eventually.

Also why is tracking production and consumption distopian?

It is easily abuseable by the sate to turn into full surveillance or to try to "control the flow of production" and thats mean "FUCK YOU WORK EXTRA 3/8 HOURS"
A good theoretician try to minimize the margin of potential corruption in his system HEARD THAT FUCKING LENINISTs ?????.

Yes, but markets track production and consumption already, but its the porkies that do it. That in addition to more government surveylance that exists but that aside.

Stock market is a capitalist over dominance of the markets, in a way you show the animosity between markets and capitalism.

This system "market" is decentralized unlike the capitalist or tech central planing.

Im not talking about the stock market. Every company tracks sales and production as much as they can, because it provides valuable information. Supermarkets even have customor cards for that, although that information is relatively unnecessary since location-specific data is enough to accurately predict purchasing patterns.

i said it tho, it decentralized therefor hard to abuse in non capitalist market economy famrade.

I fail to see how tracking production and consumption is abusable though. Your entire argument is

Having information alone doesn't give you any power over people.

Also, central planned system dont immediately mean stalin 2.0, theres plenty of ways to centrally plan, including a bottom-up approach or distributed planning. Theres no real use in the central planning authority micromanaging shit, the workers councils should do that.

Watch Michael Parenti's speeches on YouTube

What's leftypols opinion on Michael Parenti? He's given great speeches on Marxism and has very successfully authored books on the topic as well as imperialism.

Absolute bro.