/lit/ - Literature

>>17322142
Hegel

>>17322150
Which book?

If you're into intersectionality, tranny ideology, campus activism and BLM you wouldn't like Marx.

>>17322142
I started with Capital and it didn't do me any harm. I also happened to be working night shift at Walmart, which really helped me get the most out of it.

I loled at "1917" and "glove."

>>17322164
Just get a grasp of his ideas, any History of Philosophy book will do.

>>17322142
https://youtu.be/QXOKsJViHtY

>>17322142
Principles of Communism by engels

>>17322142
Reading the first few chapters of The Worldly Philosophers to get some context on economics as a field helps, but the chapter on Marx himself isn’t great.

The intro by Michael Heinrich is the best, but it’s not exactly for somebody with exactly zero back ground.

The book by Allen Woods is a great general study of Marx but I’m afraid it’s also not for somebody with completely no background.

The biography of Marx by David McLellan is also very good.

Hegel wasn't a philosopher since he claimed he achieved wisdom already and finished knowledge.

Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism

>>17322142
Philosophy is merely a set of footnotes to Stirner.

>>17322389
Stirner fags get the bullet

>>17322142
I started with a marx-engels reader by robert tucker.

I would recommend reading that generally in the order its presented. I'd skip the jewish question, the Capital excerpts until you read the rest.

The German Ideology was the most helpful in understanding historical materialism, same thing with the 13th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

Start with understanding capitalism before reading a critique of it

>>17323634
Well if you have time read adam smith, ricardo then marx I guess.

>>17323634
why are you posting good advice? we have to read books that exclusively support what we think to make us feel smart not challenge them and be able to come up with coherent ideas

>>17322142
>Seems like he's more relevant than ever
He hasn’t been relevant for 30 years this December.
>>17322177
>If you're into intersectionality, tranny ideology, campus activism and BLM you wouldn't like Marx.
This, a liberal by any other name smells just as gay.
>>17322389
Stirner proponents are universally hypocritical retards that don’t read

>>17322142
Hilarious how I can't tell if that meme is made by a "leftist" or a "rightist." It's like leftists just chose to go along with the "the Left can't meme" schtick but it's impossible to own such a shitty behavior

>>17323689
please go back to rebbit

>>17323689
I don't know, shit got repetitive and boring a long time ago. I don't even bother looking at anything anymore. The stuff that is kinda interesting is the meta shit, like your post. And even that isn't that amusing.

>>17322142
I would start with just looking up videos on youtube made by leftist explain what its about, the books are long as fuck and very dry. If you want a good short book then read 'capitalist realism'.

>>17323689
It's just an ironic Ben Garrison edit man keep it together

>>17324118
The left wants to own all these figures that had something to say like Fisher but when the rubber hits the road they're just a bunch of clueless kids getting coopted into neoliberalism that either support or won't criticize cancerous astroturf movements like LGBTQIA+=^& or BLM created and funded by jewish billionaires which comprise the very capitalist class they pretend to criticize. That's why you should look into the third position OP.

I didnt pay attention the first time, im going to try again. Wish me luck.

>>17323634
Capital explains capitalism

>>17322142
Why are "Football," "Field," "Sky," and "Glove" all labeled?

>>17324188
Do you know what irony is?

>>17324188
the absolute state of this board
lurk more you fucking idiot
BECAUSE IT'S A JOKE

>>17324145
lose weight

>>17324190
>>17324192
Sorry anons, I don't read comics, so I guess the joke flew over my head. I don't see the point of labeling obvious things but OK I guess.

>>17324194
you will never be a woman

>>17324188
Satire about "comics" that label everything, even though it's obvious.

>>17322142
If you actual want to get serious into economics don’t read Marx. None of my economics courses had Marx as a mandatory reading. The only time we talked about central planning was to make fun of its stagnation and high poverty rate.

>>17324209
you dont think there is a correlation between quantitative easing and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall?

>>17324237
wtf? I mean it's not bad for the financial sector bc the fed is just dumping money into their pockets. the fuck kind of question is this

This is a shill/bot thread.

>>17324247
the fed is pumping the economy to keep the rate of profit from falling.

>>17324237
I remember specifically doing a case study of China’s transitional period from central planning to implanting capitalistic policies in the 80s. It was an eye open and I remember the poverty rate falling by a huge amount from 80 to 20 as a result of this transition? Really, communism is a big twisted joke that doesn’t even help poor people.

>>17324253
Yeah it's totally not to just give a shitload of wealth to a specific group of people

>>17324197
Because political cartoons do (and have always) labelled metaphors because of how clumsy or forced the metaphors are or how foolish the audience. Therefore the labelling of things in an obvious way destroying the wit is made fun of by labelling things which are not even metaphors

>>17324253
I think the much more relevant metric here is growth but sure i guess you could say that

>>17324209
Why would economic courses in an institution created to bring into the ideological ruling window teach Marx?

>>17324264
China has 300,000 state owned enterprises, urban planning and does what it wants to its economy.

>>17324273
Communism doesn’t even work in terms of practicality. You think China would it where it was today if it abstained from international trade. Please compare the situation of North Korea to China

>>17324278
The majority of its economy is owned privately

>>17324209
>bourgeois institutions don't teach marx
shocking

>>17324281
you didn't answer the question

>>17324296
It’s not taught because of some conspiracy agenda. It’s not taught because it simply doesn’t work. Globalization killed communism and buried it.

>>17324289
They do though in the humanities, which are part of the same bourgeois institution

>>17324209
>None of my economics courses had Marx as a mandatory reading.
Really makes you think

>>17324313
Yes, because philosophy, unlike economics, doesn’t have to worry about the practical aspect of it :^). So they can advance, theorize until their brain explode, but they would still be leaving in la la la land

>>17324313
They don't teach his economic theories there and indeed if they say be Marxist but only focus on superstructure that would be good for them

>>17324313
The comment was obviously geared toward bourgeois economics courses as that's what you were talking about. Humanities degrees aren't by design meant to develop the next generation of capital's protectors the way economics degrees are. They're to develop baristas and """thinkers""" who are by and large ignored and placed in their containment journals.

>>17324273
>>17324289
>pretending for even a second that Marxism doesn't live on as a Bourgeois hobby by academics
I almost pissed myself laughing at the mental image of you

>>17324345
>Economics worrying about practicality

Economics is you telling me tomorrow why you were wrong in your prediction yesterday about what would happen today.

>>17324373
>economics is a sham
>that's why this even more pseudo-scientific extension of it that intends to expand its domain on a universal scale is legitimate

>>17324362
Please tell me what they would teach about Marx. He gave no real contribution to macroeconomics or microeconomics theories and equations. What is there to teach?

>>17324373
>>17324391
It was proved that random guesses are correct more often than financial analysts' predictions.

>>17324264
I am a Chinaboo and pro-free market soc dem but it's foolish of you to use China as a good example. Why do you highlight China, which actually had regulated capitalism with lots of state intervention, and ignore the post-Soviet republics which embraced unregulated free market aka shock reforms and were led to ruin?

>>17324366
im not sure what you mean, but im guessing this was written by a 30+ year old who has a vendetta against onions

>>17324412
USSR was led to ruin because it refused to change for a long time and when it did it came too fast as a result desperation. China tools its time to plan the transition.

>>17324391

>>17324399
1.the stages of societal development
2.the rate of profit which can be quantified
3.The perverse economic incentives within capitalism
4.The accumulation of capital(why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer)
5.The explotation of third world countries
etc...

>>17324414
>im not sure what you mean
Then you must be demented, it's precisely the universities that are the lifeblood of Marxism in the US.

>>17324391
wtf I love frogposters now

>>17324434
>t. never been to university

>>17324434
Every stupid kid thinks it's cool to be a communist but once they've graduated and actually need to work and pay taxes they recognize it's all bullshit. Unless they become teachers to perpetuate the cycle I guess.

>>17324434
universal literacy was unironically a mistake
everything went wrong in the 60s when schooling became 'for everyone' and simultaneously worthless and expensive

>>17324439
You have no way of knowing that, and I personally know it to be completely false.

That's not a very good rebuttal then isn't it?

>>17324439
Only academics and other privileged intellectual types are Marxists (e.g. 1 in 4 sociologists are Marxists). Workers and lower-middle class people don’t accept any of that leftist shit.

>>17324434
Does this have anything to do with only 36% of republicans thinking colleges and universities have a positive impact on the way things are going in the country - compared to 72% of democrats. How could conservatives possibly compete?
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/

>>17324476
>How could conservatives possibly compete?
By getting real jobs and degrees that actually support civilization.

>>17324463
>Every stupid kid thinks it's cool to be a communist but once they've graduated and actually need to work and pay taxes

This is true, in my experience. I flirted with communism and socialism when I was in college but forgot all about that idiocy once I started working for myself and my family.

It's amazing how actually living outside an incubator stamps out all notions that communism is a good idea.

>>17324481
a lot of people have lost there jobs, a lot of small businesses have closed shop.
What do we do now mr rugged individualist?

>>17324476
How's that second masters degree coming along anon?

>>17324481
>By getting real jobs and degrees that actually support civilization.
Is that why the counties that voted for Biden represent 70% of the country's GDP?

>>17324493
The two don't really correlate. Lots of Republicans despise Trump, and lots of Democrats voted for Biden because Sanders is too liberal/repugnant.

>>17324463
It was actually when I started working and paying taxes that I became a communist.
>>17324474
>Workers and lower-middle class people don’t accept any of that leftist shit.
Do they not accept it or do they listen to fox news telling them that marxism will create a tranny crisis. I'd say a good 95% of the US population has no idea, or at most a very tenuous grasp, on what marxism is. The only thing your unsupported claim says to me is that the more educated you are, the more likely you are going to align with marxism.
>>17324473
So what did you study and how many times did your professor lecture you on marxism?

>>17324491
No-one will accept any answer that requires a real degree of sacrifice so it doesn't matter, and there is no magic bullet so...

But I think a good and maybe even realistic start would be riding inflation
to the end of the line and completely outpacing things like student loans. The economy is fucked because people are weighed down by worthless debts, not all debts are worthless of course but certainly young people don't exactly have capital in exchange for their indentured servitude.

>>17324264
communism isn't about helping poor people

>>17324491
Because corporatism in tangent with crony capitalism is a an awful form of capitalism that has deviated from helping small businesses to crushing them

>>17324535
aka the only form of capitalism

>>17324508
In the 2016 election the exact same thing was shown - that republican counties are practically irrelevant when it comes to GDP. Of all the counties that voted for Trump in 2016 they represented a whopping 36% of the country's GDP. And it makes sense considering their aversion to anything education related, and the fact they're relegated to only the most degrading of jobs.

>>17324540
No, in a true non-intervention capitalist society big business will simply go bankrupt and not be bailed out by government handouts for making poor business decisions.

>>17324512
>So what did you study and how many times did your professor lecture you on marxism?
Computer Science, I avoided the humanities like the plague and I still had numerous encounters with professors making snide remarks to the effect of supporting Marxist ideas, or rather suggesting that only idiots don't. The fact it wasn't some formal lecture made it more insidious if anything, it gave the suggestion of normality.

I also had a few mandatory 'core classes' of course most of which were outright indoctrination chambers, particularly the philosophy course which was headed by a tattooed brown lesbian. She was perfectly insufferable like a living caricature and I dropped it to switch to another professor for the same course. I was probably the only one as my peers seemed to enjoy her attitude and easy grading. This fucked my schedule but the next professor was more balanced and less gay (literally). Of course not all hope is lost, I also had one core 'classic literature' course which focused on the Greeks, which was wildly unpopular and most people dropped out over the first few days and went with one of the alternatives. Don't presume to lecture me on my own reality, thanks.

>It was actually when I started working and paying taxes that I became a communist.
Oh yeah? What do you do. I've some bets in my head.

>>17324493
>GDP
>the same as actually supporting civilization
America barely produces anything. What decade do you think this is? Our GDP is mostly paper pushing middlemen. When you need someone to repair a fucking electrical grid in the middle of the storm that is fucking over tens of thousands of people, that's a real job. And I assure you that electrician doesn't suck commie cock.

>>17324544
Yeah but gdp is a meme, the entire monetary system is a meme

>>17324559
The highest of copes. Do you think the electricity system was designed by a conservative? No the actual important aspects are done by educated people - the legwork is left to the gammas.

>>17322142
THE EASIEST WAY IN IS TO WATCH THIS VIDEO. PUT ASIDE YOUR DISTRACTIONS AND LISTEN CLOSELY. JOSHUA PHILIPP IS A GENIUS.
https://youtu.be/YwPScbShR_0

>>17324581
America's electrical grid is the result of corporate consolidation, in the fucking early 20th century. They were education people sure, but nothing like today's 'educated people'.

>>17324580
>NOOO WHAT DO YOU MEAN REAL ESTATE SPECULATION ISN'T NECESSARY, THESE ARE HIGHLY EDUCATED PEOPLE, PILLARS OF OUR SOCIETY!
The absolute cope of the modern lefty, holy shit. You'll suck the dick of the person destroying your society just to metaphysically sucker punch some jobless redneck who dared to point out how impractical your world view is.

>>17324547
I'm a health economist in the private sector with a masters degree from a top university.

>numerous encounters with professors making snide remarks to the effect of supporting Marxist ideas, or rather suggesting that only idiots don't.
When considering what the average conservative's idea of marxism is, I doubt these "remarks to the effect of supporting Marxist ideas" had anything to do with marxism at all. In any case, I find it strange that these occurrences of ebil margsist professors coming out of the woodwork to spook students only happens to /pol/yps and fox news... erm... enjoyers.

>>17324581
>quote Huxley
>while expressing sympathy for educated idiots and socialists
The irony is staggering.

>>17324622
Huxley?

>>17324618
>I find it strange that these occurrences of ebil margsist professors coming out of the woodwork to spook students only happens to /pol/yps and fox news... erm... enjoyers.
How do you find it? Do you stalk these anons personally in order to know who they are for your epic personal attacks and dismissals? I can call you an idiot based on the substance of your reply though.
>I'm a health economist in the private sector with a masters degree from a top university.
I just won an imaginary bet. You could have just said you were a parasite, it'd be pithier.

>>17324627
I guess I gave you too much credit.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/5-caste-colors-in-brave-new-world.html#:~:text=Below%20the%20Alphas%20and%20Betas,they%20are%20dressed%20in%20khaki.

>>17324628
>Do you stalk these anons personally
who else whinges about marxist professors the way conservatives do... I just have to apply a modicum of critical thinking to know.
>I just won an imaginary bet. ou could have just said you were a parasite, it'd be pithier.
yes I'm sure you weren't gearing up to call me a liberal dance teacher or something of the like. Want to explain how my job is more or less parasitic than bring a tech bro?

>>17324633
Sorry I can't read.

>>17324627
>/lit/ tourists

>>17324391
Marxism is a critique of it, not an expansion

>>17324760
both are predictive models based on magic

>>17324463
>>17324488
filtered

>>17324771
How is Marxian critique of the political economy a predictive model?

>>17324792
how do you expect him to answer that question when he's never read marx?

>>17324792

>>17324818
he didnt say when though...

>>17324818
>this hasn't happened, therefore it will never happen
also, there is a not insignificant distinction to be made between a predictive model and a prediction

>>17324798
>t. has never read Popper
embarrassing desu

>>17324825
>we'll run out of new markets eventually bro trust me, trust me
Seems legit fellow Marxist bro, any day now the revolution and subsequent utopia will follow.

>>17324841
Yes, sir. Any day now.

>>17324841
Heres a chart.
I remember hearing somewhere that the rate of profit would hit zero in 2050 or so.

>>17324818
How is that part of the Marxian critique of political economy?

Also (and I'm not a Marxist) this is actually happening, wages relative to production are gradually shrinking, you just don't notice because absolute productive output is increasing meaning the value of labor is going up but the ratio of compensation is rapidly diminishing which is why wealth percentage is increasingly concentrated and people are living and dying in debt

>>17324879
But this chart is totally wrong.

>>17324919
how is it wrong?

>>17324902
>Also (and I'm not a Marxist) this is actually happening, wages relative to production are gradually shrinking
Only in the west, which is ironic given another failed prediction of Marx, that they'd be the first to revolt. In reality countries in Latin America and Asia became communist, have since become capitalist, and are flourishing.

You can try to fit the discussion into whatever overly specific framework makes you feel better about your joke of an ideology, it's still based on absolutely nothing (except failure).

>>17324969
okay why are wages falling in the west mr economist?

>>17324969
>In reality countries in Latin America and Asia became communist, have since become capitalist, and are flourishing.

Uhhhhhhhhh. What on earth are you talking about?

>>17324969
>doesn't answer the question
>excuses the wage prediction being correct because it's only occurring in countries that are in the most advanced stages of capitalism thus far
what a joke of a reply

>>17324996
China, Laos, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua and soon to be Cuba. Are you American? Do you not know anything about the rest of the world?

>>17325014
>doesn't answer the dishonest and leading question
Woah bro, you sure got me there.
>the prediction is right bro
No it isn't, if anything economic crises in the west have gotten progressively less severe even as wages have depreciated more and more. Just another failed prediction by Marx.

>>17325022
China and Vietnam are socialist countries.... And no, you're not allowed to disagree with this

>>17325030
theyve gotten less severe because of bail outs.

>>17324992
California is about as west as you can get, don't they have the highest wages in the US especially in that Silicon Valley place?

>>17325032
I won't disagree, since you're clearly a retarded arguing in bad faith. China is the capitalist godhead phallus of the fucking world, only a simpleton would suggest otherwise.

>>17325022
I don't know how you qualify flourishing, the standard of living in those countries for wagies is not what I'd call flourishing, their abodes would not even be allowed in America housing code. But for the sake of argument let's say it's better now with capitalism (as if they were never capitalist before!). We could also add, their productivity has risen far more dramatically than their standard of living. So even if real wages have increase marginally they have really not relative to production, in fact one could very feasibly argue wages relative to production have decreased

>>17325033
So you admit the prediction is wrong, you give a dumb reason for it but whatever, I accept the concession of defeat.

>all the seething commies coming out of the woodwork with their garbled worthless 2 cents
beautiful

>>17324273
>>17324289
>>17324320
>THA CIA KKKRACKERS BE KEEEPING THA MARXIST TRANNY DOWN YO
Funny cope.

unironically the western canon
start with the greeks

>>17325030
>dishonest and leading question
what exactly is dishonest by asking how that is part of marxian critique of political economy a dishonest question? lmfao you just sound confused
> economic crises in the west have gotten progressively less severe
Do you have a single source to back that up?
>even as wages have depreciated more and more.
>just another failed prediction by Marx.
lmfao which is it bro? make up your mind hahahahaha fucking retard cant even put together a coherent argument surely im being baited

>>17325037
>California is about as west as you can get
This retard literally thinks being more geographically west makes a place more 'west' than a western place east of it. Can't make this shit up LMAO

>>17325483
*what exactly is dishonest by asking how that is a part of marxian critique of political economy?

>>17324176
Lmao

>>17324992
There's a few answers to that question, but the general theme is that western people have proven their labor to be nearly worthless outside of a few niche industries.

Our manufacturing technology has made it so that one semi-skilled technician can do the work of 20-30 unskilled factory workers 20 years ago, and this has made these people effectively obsolete. To the extent that low skilled labor is still required, there is an effectively infinite number of international scabs who are willing to illegally immigrate to the west and take piss poor wages just to not live in their home countries and to have the opportunity to at some point provide for their families at home.

If we combine the obsolescence of the western low skilled worker with the never ending unrelenting tide of low skilled workers from outside the first world, you get a guarantee of wage stagnation in the lower class.

>>17325895
In Marx's theory, the value of a commodity is tied to the amount of labour that is necessary to produce a commodity. Marx argued that technological innovation enabled more efficient means of production. In the short run, physical productivity would increase as a result, allowing the early adopting capitalists to produce greater use values (i.e., physical output). However, in the long run, if demand remains the same and the more productive methods are adopted across the entire economy, the amount of labour required (as a ratio to capital, i.e. the organic composition of capital) would decrease. Now, assuming value is tied to the amount of labor necessary, the value of the physical output would decrease relative to the value of production capital invested. In response, the average rate of industrial profit would therefore tend to decline in the longer term.

>>17322142
the marx engels reader, then go and read the full texts

But Trump lost and now you’re all going to prison
Would you say Jordan Peterson sums up this board?
Or that Pessoa character?
I think they’re both good.
Unironically.
Could you sum up what you were trying to say in one word or author?

>>17325875
brain/lit/

>>17325918
I just don't think that this quantified tie between labor and value is necessarily helpful at this point. There's a few areas where I think this falls apart.

1. Skills are not fungible. Even within lower skilled trades, being good at being a factory line assembly technician for an aircraft company does not necessarily translate to being good at low skilled data entry positions. When you then assume that hours = hours, it is totally divorced from the complex feedback loops of modern production. I'm sure that this issue is addressed within Marxist economics, but I don't see it very well described or discussed by "Leftists" on the internet.

2. Labor theory of value doesn't at all account for the insane value that proper resource management brings. A good manager within an industrial setting can be the difference between a job being accomplished within 10,000 labor hours, or 100 labor hours. These same products may be valued the same at point of sale, and yet it was management of incremental aspects of labor and resource access that made the value difference, not the labor itself.

3. Marxism seems not at all to address the issue of access. For as much as progressives talk about "access" to goods and services in terms of public needs, the management and creation of access is an incredibly valuable service and profession. There is a ton of creativity and intellectual work that goes into properly partitioning and proper logistics that make resources accessible, and it seems that Marxist economics (again, I've only superficially read some essays by Marxists, I'm sure there are economists who address this that I haven't seen) completely ignores how important management and creation of access is to value.

>>17327700
Capital may be a valuable piece of research to explain a portion of Capitalism, but the thought that this one text can perfectly encapsulate a field that thousands of doctoral researchers can only hope to chip away at is insane.

>>17322142
What did Garrison mean by this?

Don’t get caught up in Hegel if you are just starting out. Like all great thinkers, Marx needs to be approached in terms of a series of approximations that get you closer and closer to the truth, and on your first pass you don’t need to know anything about Hegel. Of course Hegel becomes extremely important when you want to get into the deep weeds of interpreting Marx, but on your first pass you can waste a lot of time trying to read about Hegel while never getting to Marx himself.

If you genuinely have no background in anything then the best starting place is probably The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx by Alex Callincos. That’s the book I’d give to somebody with a highschool level educational background as a first pass.

If you have some background in the history philosophy, then Karl Marx by Allen Wood (2e) is the best introduction. It mostly focuses on the philosophical aspects of Marx’s thought, rather than the economic aspects. A lower division undergrad would find it a comfortable read.

The first volume of The Main Currents of Marxism is an excellent place to start if you are an upper division undergrad or graduate, and you want to get the whole prehistory of marxist thought along with the work of Marx and Engels.

Ultimately you have to read Capital itself, or at the very least the first maybe 4 to 7 chapters. For a first time reader the David Harvey lectures are very helpful. I also really like the book by Ben Fine as a guide as well. Ultimately though you have to read Michael Heinrich for the Real Truth on Capital. The problem is that his intro kind of assumes you already have a vague familiarity with the topic and he’s there mostly to clarify what’s actually going on.


Either the Robert Tucker or David McLellan ‘Selected Works of Marx’ are great, though I’d probably favour Tucker given the choice.

>>17322142
Marx reading list:

Brumaire
Manuscripts
Value, Price, and Profit
Gotha
Grundrisse
Capital 1, 2, and 3 (yes you need to read all of them. 1 is not self-contained.)

Further Reading:
Michael Heinrich's Introduction (note: not an introduction)
Heinrich's 3-4(?) volume biography of Marx that he is still writing (vol 1 is out)
Love and Capital (another biography)
Isaak Illich Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value
Time, Labor, and Social Domination by Postone
Value by Diane Elson
Workers and Capital by Tronti
Law and Marxism by Pashukanis
Notebooks by Gramsci
The Principle of Hope by Bloch
Arcades Project by Benjamin
The Production of Space by Lefebvre
The Making of the English Working Class by Thompson (also read his essay on time.)
Poverty of Theory by Thompson
The Black Jacobins by C.L.R. James
Hobsbawm tetralogy
Antiquity to Feudalism and Lineages of the Absolutist State by Perry Anderson
The Essential Lenin
The Essential Stalin
On Contradiction and On Practice by Mao
Dialectical Logic, Intelligent Materialism, and The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx's Capital by Ilyenkov
Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, I and IS Apparatuses, and Philosophy of the Encounter by Althusser
H and CS by Lukacs
Marx: Towards the Centre of Possibility by Karatani
Eclipse by Gilles Dauve
What Was the USSR? Towards a Theory of the Deformation of Value Under State Capitalism by Aufheben
Reading Marx Politically by Cleaver
Marx's Inferno by William Clare Roberts
Moneybags Must Be So Lucky: On the Literary Structure of Capital by Robert Paul Wolff
In the Long Run We Are All Dead: Keynesianism, Political Economy, and Revolution by Geoff Mann
Crack Capitalism by John Holloway
The Origins of Capitalism as a Social System: The Prevalence of an Aleatory Encounter by John Milios
Critical Theory and the Critique of Political Economy: On Subversion and Negative Reason by Bonefeld
The 4 volumes of Open Marxism
There's No Such Thing as "The Economy": Essays on Capitalist Value by Samuel A. Chambers
Marx at the Millennium by Cyril Smith
Critiquing Capitalism Today: New Ways to Read Marx by Frederick Harry Pitts
The Dialectical Imagination by Martin Jay
Money and Totality by Moseley
Marx's Capital and Hegel's Logic: A Reexamination by Moseley
The Constitution of Capital: Essays on Volume 1 of Marx's Capital by Bellofiore
The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View by Ellen Meiksins Wood

>>17327766
Let's look at this way, when monarchy was predominant it requires thousands of texts explaining it an elaborating it. But for us, we could explain it a lot easier. Why is this?

>>17327888
This idea that Marxism or Socialism or Communism is some "post-Capitalist evolution" is a very strange religious belief you types tend to have. It's even more peculiar when you look at how so many who seek to justify socialist or communist forms of social organization point not to a futurist approach, but pre-Civilization and aboriginal heterogeneous tribal structures.

You're much better off going the Mark Fisher route (Capitalist Realism not suicide) than pretending that Marx had this magical answer in his biblical text for your faith.

>>17327961
That doesn't really address my point, you are shifting the question. Capitalism is the ruling ideology and the ruling class is the capitalist class. The justification of their power and the reasoning behind it is cranked out constantly and extensive flow by the institutions which they own. Saying well look how complicated and difficult it is shows naivete on your part. Certainly the phenomena of capitalism are baroque and myriad but a simple theory of capitalism should be straightforward unless it's deceptive

>>17328000
It's not even a matter of saying "Look how complicated it is," the basic thesis about the way that production works is lacking in the face of many everyday aspects of modern capitalism. Marx has very little of value to contribute to the "gig economy" or the age of simultaneously globalized commerce and individualized productivity. Even the catch all "seizing the means of production" means nothing when a consumer laptop is a more powerful means of production of value than anything Marx could have possibly imagined.

The simple theory of Capitalism is present, but one cannot only attack the simplest form of something and expect to have meaningful critiques of the actual implementation. Especially when the simplest form doesn't have a straightforward relationship with the current implementation. In many "Capitalist" nations there are very few meaningful distinctions between state entities and corporate entities and yet the worker is no closer to operating the wheels of power. In fact State Capitalism has placed the worker further from it than ever before.

>>17328052
If a theory of capitalism is true it would apply to capitalism in any age.

>>17328074
Again, religious faith over application to reality.

>>17327881
I don't know why you keep posting this.

Would you like to tell us which items on that list are actually good introductions and which are more advanced commentaries? If not, please stop posting.

>>17328083
Not religious faith, simple academic premise.

>>17322142
you should start with acquiring a background in philosophy and economics

>>17322142
Marxists that don't understand economics are the absolute worst. Labeling yourself a Marxist as opposed to socialist/left/anarchist is advertising to the world that you're a retard money incel.

>>17328114
An academic version of that premise would be that a previously developed theory of Capitalism COULD apply to any iteration of Capitalism, not that it apriori does for some strange reason. The assertion that it is "true" is also not particularly academic given that it basically either forces you into a tautology where your definition of Capitalism is only things that apply to the criterion set out by your theory of Capitalism, or to just outright assert it as truth apriori with no justification (i.e religious faith).

Why do people pretend Marx was right?
Marxism said that a Socialist revolution was inevitable and that capitalism would lose
He was wrong
So why is he still relevant?
Capitalism won a long time ago. It is Socialism which died.
Unless you are one of those retards that think any year now there will be revolution, which is just wrong.
Here is a newsflash, you will die under capitalism, your children will die under capitalism, their children as well. Its not coming. If anything a brand new system may take its place one day, but it will not be marxist in nature. The closest you will ever dream of getting is social democracy (which is capitalistic)

>>17328212
Obviously if a fundamental theory of capitalism only applies to capitalism of a particular nature then it's not a fundamental theory of capitalism, since a theory of capitalism being about the nature of capitalism itself would apply to all forms of capitalism. If it did not then it is, in fact, not a theory of capitalism, but a theory of the performance of capitalism under particular conditions which do not always apply to it

>>17328258
Okay, so you're going with the tautology one. Capitalism is what our fundamental theory says it is. Got it.

>>17328402
The fundamental theory could be wrong but I'm saying you are not offering an alternative one

>>17322142
Don't start with Marx, thats not a good idea, start with Bertrand Russell's History of western philosophy
>>17322150
Very true.

>>17328445
Not him, but how do you empirically know that the “nature” of capitalism has not changed— or how even can an economic system be such that it has a nature which is immutable like you seem to think.
The problem I take with your argument is that you argue from an ideological position which has clearly been colored by the material facts of a certain age; specifically the times Marx was alive. The economy is different from how it once was, and thus the ways in which capital exists in our world has also changed.
This insistence upon there being a fundamental nature of capitalism is odd, especially from an ideological position which purports itself to be materially informed

>>17322142
Smith/Malthus/Ricardo
Anti-Dühring, Socialism, Origin... by Engels
Marx manuscripts, essays letter starting with the Grundrisse
Kapital

Basically everything Marx or Engels wrote before 1850 is not really relevant for anything but historical context.

>>17327881
Where is Bordiga?

>>17328234
There is no Marxist system, idiot.

>>17329347
There is no coherent meaning to capitalism if we say it cannot have a particular meaning

>>17329459
>blaah blaaah i'm a redditor
This is all i hear from marxists desu

>>17323688
reading is a spook

>>17324493
this is such an awful chart
if you divide gdp by individual voters and trump has more than 60% of the GDP

>>17322142
First understand that he came to be in a time were workers had no rights, almost no pay, kids had to go into the big mašinerija and would sometimes die of loose limbs.
Now understand that that stuff only happens in communisam and china("not" cum unist)
then just read books and that topic, like just read, take a book, on the topic and read it

>>17322164
Phenomenologie of Spirit.
If arthoes can read it you can too.

>>17324391
This. It's fucking hilarious how much lefties sound like Nazis when denouncing mainstream economics and economic academia.