/lit/ - Literature

>>21582515
>>21586516
>>21585218
This guy? I found this book very weak. I wouldn't recommend it over Kolakowski, it's tidbits of Marx's least viable economic parts, and Heinrich admitting Marx got immiersation and other things wrong. I don't think 19th century economic theory is Marx's strong point in contemporary life, that properly belongs to the history of economic ideas, rather the materialist conception of liberation within the adapted Hegelian framework is.

>The "content" of something (its "natural form") is distinguished from its "social form"—sometimes Marx speaks of an "economic form-determination" (okonomiscke Formbestimmung). The "natural form" of the chair is simply its material composition (for example, whether it is made of wood or metal). "Social form," on the other hand, means that the chair is a "commodity," something that is exchanged and that therefore possesses an "exchange value." That the chair is a commodity is not a characteristic of the chair itself as a thing, but rather of the society in which this thing exists.
But this is wrong. The use-value is also a property of a relation, between the thing and it's 'user', it's not a property of the thing-in-itself or a 'natural form' of a thing; there's no use-value in a thing without a relation to a 'user', a 'social form', the value exists only in the relational act of using. A chair only has a use-value if a person uses it for sitting; a relational act or 'social form'. Exchange-value isn't different in essence to use-value, both only exist in a relational or 'social form' context, things-in-themselves have no value at all, no use-value or exchange-value.

There was some discussion on here about Heinrich's interpretation of Marx and NEETdom, and I just want to remind all workerist "Marxists": Heinrich's reading is the only way to get away from post-structuralist critiques of 20th century Marxism. Since these vulgar Marxists don't read anything other than Lenin, I'll have to summarize: worldview Marxism sees productivity as the basis of all societies, even though in reality this can only really be found in capitalism. Hunter-gatherers, antiquity, and feudalism did not place special ideological significance on productivity. In fact it was often seen as a vulgar orientation for a person to have.
So the problem becomes that Marxism is another product of bourgeois ideology, unless it's read the way Heinrich reads it. Categories like "productive labor" and other Engelsian nonsense have no place in a viable Marxism.
Anyway, NEETs are based, and fuck workerism since workers will not be a thing in communism.
>inb4 random Marx quote
Yeah, we know, the thing is Heinrich makes it clear Marx never completely broke with the political economy he was critiquing, so he contradicted himself quite a lot.

Bought this. What am I in for?

>>18648195
Yes. Also check out Michael Heinrich.
https://mronline.org/2017/11/17/150-years-of-capital-with-no-end-in-sight/