Reddit mentions of Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty

If I was going to provide someone with a list of books that best expressed my current thinking on the Political Economy these would be my top ones:

1. The Law - While over a century old this books stands as the perfect intro to the ideas of Classical Liberalism. When you understand the core message of this book you understand why people oppose so many aspects of government action.
   
2. Seeing Like A State - The idea that society can be rebuilt from the top down is well demolished in this dense but important read. The concept of Legibility was a game changer for my brain.
   
3. Stubborn Attachments - This books presents a compelling philosophical argument for the importance of economic growth. It's hard to overstate how important getting the balance of economic growth vs other considerations actually is.
   
4. The Breakdown of Nations - A classic text on why the trend toward "bigger" isn't a good thing. While various nits can be picked with this book I think its general thesis is holding up well in our increasingly bifurcated age.
   
5. The Joy of Freedom - Lots of books, many objectively better, could have gone here but this book was my personal pivot point which sent me away from Socialism and towards capitalism. This introduction to "Libertarian Capitalism" is a bit dated now but it was powerful.
   
   There are, of course many more books that could go on this list. But the above list is a good sampling of my personal philosophy of political economy. It is not meant as a list of books to change your mind but simply as a list of books that are descriptive of my current belief that we should be orientated towards high (sustainable) economic growth & more decentralization.
   
   Some honorable mentions:
   
   As a self proclaimed "Libertarian Crunchy Con" I have to add The Quest for Community & Crunchy Cons
   
   The book The Fourth Economy fundamentally changed my professional direction in life.
   
   Anti-Fragile was another book full of mind blowing ideas and shifted my approach to many things.
   
   The End of Jobs is a great combination of The Fourth Economy & Anti-Fragile (among other concepts) into a more real-world useful set of ideas.
   
   Markets Not Capitalism is a powerful reminder that it is not Capitalism per se that is important but the transformational power of markets that need be unleashed.
   
   You will note that I left out pure economic books, this was on purpose. There are tons of good intro to econ type books and any non-trained economist should read a bunch from a bunch of different perspectives. With that said I am currently working my way through the book Choice and if it stays as good as it has started that will probably get added to my core list.
   
   So many more I could I list like The Left, The Right, & The State or The Problem of Political Authority and on it goes...
   I am still looking for a "manifesto" of sorts for the broad movement towards decentralization (I have a few possibilities on my 'to read list') so if you know of any that might fit that description let me know.

>Is there a book that justifies private property, preferably through the idea of self ownership

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism

>try to get a step closer to "deciding" what ideology fits my thoughts.

There is more in common and more semantical differences than both sides like to admit. For you, I would highly recommend starting with this book

Markets Not Capitalism (amazon)

PDF

Free Audio Book

A couple of articles I recommend starting with

Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace “Anti-Capitalism"

Against Anarchist Apartheid

Here is a discussion I had with a mutualist. It might help give you a better idea where the differences are. HERE

Also for /u/goinupthegranby


Markets Not Capitalism is I feel like the most well known modern Market Anarchist (LibSoc) book. Also you can look into Mutualism and Proudhon's thoughts on how society should be set up.

> So in a socialist system (public ownership of the means of production), prices and property are managed by the state

No. If no one owns the means of production in socialism(which is its definition), then there is no exchange in capital goods, labor, and factors of production. If theres no exchange, then theres no prices. Therefore there are no prices whatsoever to be "managed".

>state action is intrinsically socialist

Yes but to what degree matters. A government organization in a fairly capitalist system can acquire capital from private markets based on their market prices and has some idea about the costs involved in providing public goods and services(although not as efficient as markets).

A socialist system has no frame of reference of market prices, and thus cannot rationally allocate resources, This is the framework of Mises' calculation problem.

>but you offer compelling arguments against Keynesianism being socialist. However, clearly, Keynesianism is not a free market ideology, but also not a #realsocialism ideology either, so I suppose it deserves its' own ideological catalog?

>Would you consider Keynesianism capitalist?

Keynesianism, at least as an economic theory(and not as a policy framework) can exist in a perfectly free market. The free banking school has similarities in both Keynesianism and Austrianism.

> the feeling I've been having lately of distinguishing free markets from capitalism.

This book can further show how capitalism can be distinguished from the free market:

https://www.amazon.com/Markets-Not-Capitalism-Individualist-Inequality/dp/1570272425/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506656351&sr=8-1&keywords=markets+not+capitalism

Of course they're not capitalist. You know that markets can and do exist without a state-reinforced capitalist system right? The difference between those markets and capitalist markets is not vast, and I can tell you don't know what you're talking about because capitalism is merely an economic system, not some sort of replacement for the marketplace.

My favorite free market anti-capitalist alive today is Roderick T. Long.

Try checking out the book "Markets Not Capitalism". Here's a PDF of the book available free online

It's a collection of essays from various individualist market anarchists (including Long)

You may also enjoy Long's lecture: "How (and Why) to be a Free-Market Radical Leftist

Here is your wikipedia page...

But if you want to get actual knowledge on the subject, you might these books :

What's Property? - Pierre Joseph Proudhon

Studies in Mutualist Political Economy - Kevin Carson

Markets Not Capitalism - Various Authors

If you want a simple answer : property doesn't exist as a right, only physical possession exists : ie. you live in a house = you own the house, you work in a factory = you own the factory, you have a paper telling you that "you own x% of this company" = it means jack shit

Markets not Capitalsim by Gary Chartier. It's what got me interested in Mutualism.

I like Markets Not Capitalism: http://www.amazon.com/Markets-Not-Capitalism-Individualist-Inequality/dp/1570272425

Edit: down-voted but no reply? Why? Markets not Capitalism is a very good book.

> o direito à da propriedade privada é adquirida após assinar um contracto?

Isso nem faz sentido. A propriedade privada pode ser transferida de uma pessoa para outra por contrato, mas não é criada por contrato. Se um pedaço de terra não tem dono, que tipo de contracto é que pode atribuir propriedade dessa terra a alguém?

Se estiveres interessado em filosofias que defendem a liberdade contratual mas não necessariamente a propriedade privada, aconselho o livro "Markets, Not Capitalism": https://www.amazon.com/Markets-Not-Capitalism-Individualist-Inequality/dp/1570272425

> "whataboutism" é mesmo o fundo da capacidade de argumentar.

O whataboutism é dizer que os outros não pode criticar porque também o fazem. Não estou a ver como se aplica aos meus posts.

> E aliás, pegando no teu argumento, és comunista mesmo querendo liberdade contratual mas abolição da propriedade privada. É um conceito puramente comunista

Lá está, e no entanto cumpre os critérios que tinhas definido originalmente. Penso que devias rever a tua filosofia, em vez de andares a chamar comunista a toda a gente que não segue a linha capitalista à risca.