/lit/ - Literature

>>18585881
The best advice I can give to anyone who wants to read Marx is to first read Hegel. Marx only makes sense as part of a continuum of philosophic tradition, if you come at him without context it will color your perceptions and render you incapable of having serious discussions about his work.

Reminder
>A large part of Marx's work is about the economy of industrial countries, which can be divided into two categories: fanfiction about muh workers, which is no longer relevant, and predictions about what would happen in the future, which almost all were proven wrong.

>>18585898
based wikipedia article reader

>>18585903
Keep coping, you know that Weber BTFO Marx to oblivion.

>>18585903
You want a hot take, the actual successors to Marx are hardcore Anarcho-Capitalists, who adopted Marx's dialectic and actually started projecting the future accurately with it.

>>18585913
>started projecting the future accurately
fake new, anarkiddie

>>18585947
Oh no, I'm not an anarchist of any stripe, but the dialectical continuation of Marx is clearly Hoppe.

>>18585954
Hoppe isn't a dialectical thinker. You have to actually know what you are talking about to troll.

>>18585954
>make statements A and B
>statement A is contested
>B is clearly true, retard
You just can't into dialectic, huh.

>>18585881
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific was written by Engels as a sort of tl;dr because Marx was literally incapable of writing in a brief, easily understandable way. Start with that.

>>18585954
>dialectical continuation of Marx is clearly Hoppe
>Benegas Lynch provided empirical evidence demonstrating that modern monarchies tend to be far poorer than modern democracies. In response, Hoppe argued that monarchies tend to be poorer than democracies not because of intrinsic features of these political systems, but because African countries, populated by what Hoppe considers to be racially inferior people, are disproportionately monarchical whereas European countries are mostly democratic.
kek

>>18586096
Holy based

>>18585889
So what are some good beginner books about Hegel?
Or do I actually need to start with the Greeks
I'm a semi neet right because the semester is over so might as well learn something

>>18585881
The chapter on Marxism in Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds is great imo

>>18586161
Don't listen to >>18585881
Literally just pick up a Marx reader and start reading Marx directly.

Marx reader or 1844 Manuscripts

>>18586096
>Benegas Lynch provided empirical evidence demonstrating that modern monarchies tend to be far poorer than modern democracies.
Uh? That's not true
>but because African countries, populated by what Hoppe considers to be racially inferior people, are disproportionately monarchical
That's not true either

>>18585881
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Currents_of_Marxism

>>18585881
https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/2/20090522_nb_casp_full_indexed.pdf
Economy-wise? Skim through "Capital as Power", particularly through chapters 6,7,8

>>18585881
just read Marx and Engels and don't listen to idiots who tell you otherwise. they're either trying to convince themselves of their own excuses not to read them or just shilling some garbage unrelated to Marx.
you can start with parts II and III of Anti-Dühring, for example

>>18585889
>Marx only makes sense as part of a continuum of philosophic tradition
no, Marx broke with philosophy. he doesn't need any prerequisites, and the best evidence of that is that neither he nor Engels ever stated in any of the prefaces or introductions to their works that some prerequisite reading is needed. in fact in their letters they rather said that the typical intellectual education is an obstacle to understanding.
just read Marx and Engels

>>18585898
no prediction of Marx was proven wrong

>>18586039
>Socialism: Utopian and Scientific was written by Engels as a sort of tl;dr because Marx was literally incapable of writing in a brief, easily understandable way
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is an excerpt from a work written in order to show that Dühring was an anti-socialist cretin. like a typical educated philosopher he was so wrong about everything that Engels had to describe the basics to him like to a child. he quoted from Marx a lot while doing so, and one of the chapters was entirely written by Marx himself

>>18585881

>>18586360
>no prediction of Marx was proven wrong
He predicted successful revolutions would start in the most developed countries and spread from there, whereas they actually all happened in backwards countries. Otherwise I agree with you though.

Sowell's Marxism.

>>18586410
that's wrong though
>The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
>Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
>January 21, 1882, London

>>18585881
Start here anon

>>18586542
Ahah, so clever!

>>18585881
>What are some non autistic beginner works about autism?

>>18586645
>a-a book about nazi germany?t-that's a nazi book!
Marvelous understanding.

just read Capital. It isn't really difficult, just long. Lenin was wrong about needing to read Hegel before Marx, Marx is only a hegelian at surface level. The way in which quantity becomes quality, in Marx, has nothing at all to do with the actual technical process in Hegel

>>18586798
>Marx is only a hegelian at surface level
True. Marx tried into Dante, instead.

>>18585881
this is fundamental to get Marx. is ust 32 pages

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf

>>18586500
https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm
>Then for a time the Slav counter-revolution will sweep down on the Austrian monarchy with all its barbarity, and the camarilla will see what sort of allies it has. But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.

>>18585881
es gibt einen reader bei surkamp "kritik des kapitalimus" oder so in der art. ist eine gute text sammlung von marx/engels + einführungstexte

>>18586745
yikes

>>18586745
>>18586872
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Völkerabfälle

>>18586914
>The British Liberal historian, George Watson, for example, cited this text by Engels as evidence for his view that Hitler was a Marxist
kek
Not sure how this has to do with what I wrote though

dude, please don't read Hegel or anything else (Hegel is notoriously difficult and vague and people who are recommending it are trolling). Capital is THE book. Chapters 1 and 2 are hard going, but if you read them and then look up some videos to help you it should be ok. After them, it's quite an easy book to read.


Otherwise you could start with this short piece by Marx, Wage Labour and Capital which summarises some of his main ideas:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/

>>18587365
to add to this, if anyone here is looking for an application of Marx to modern society that isn't dogmatic, then John Smith is a really good writer on this.

>>18587373
>Capitalism's final crisis
When will they learn?

>>18587405
don't now if final, but is in a nice crisis.

>>18587405
CUT MY LIFE INTO PIECES

>>18586161
>So what are some good beginner books about Hegel?
Personally if you are an atheist, Hegel will just give you massive headaches. Start with Hermetic philosophy, the Kybalion, then Hegel is much more fun, and comprehensible.

Thomas Sowell - Marxism

>>18587373
>>18587702
>corporatism is capitalism
Leftists are always, without exception, utterly fucking retarded

>>18587405
We are in it since 2008. It is not something that last 6 month. The beginning of the end, has started though.

>>18588096
Just checked quickly Sowell's biography, and it seems he is projecting.

>>18588113
Yeah, that's not been said before.

>>18586360
>in fact in their letters they rather said that the typical intellectual education is an obstacle to understanding. just read Marx and Engels

>>18588130
Unsure what this is supposed to mean.

>>18588109
corporatims still depend on capital so....

>>18588137
I mean, do you think the economy is doing fine? Reminder of the central banks negative interest rate. Which are an objective markers that the situation is dramatic.

>>18588113
Everything since 2008 has been easy mode compared to most of the rest of the history of capitalism. If the Great Depression didn't usher in your commie your utopia, nothing lesser will. Deal with it.

>>18588159
Oh that must mean it's capitalism then, right?

>>18588145
Didn't know that the revolutionary Catalonia, Israeli Kibbutzim, or Makhno free communes were starving. Your problem is that you interpret State Capitalism (bolshevism) as being socialism, and real communism, as being non existent.

>>18588191
Not him, but... yeah?
Hitlerism is a jewish ideology. It's based on huckstering and money.

>>18588166
>People almost forcibly vaxxed with a deadly vaccine
>plans to kill people with chemtrails and EMF
>easy mode.

>>18588197
I didnt know that any of those survived long enough to warrant serious attention by anyone other than the same naive idealists who created them.

>>18588191
yes, we call it capitalism because most production depends on capital .

As in feudalism production was mostly done in fiefs

>>18588225
Yep, easy mode. The jab is oh so very terrifying isn't it but would you rather a forced one way ticket to Iwo Jima after your family starved for a decade?

>>18586360
Many of his "predictions" are tautological. EG his labor theory of value - can never be proven wrong because Marxist "intellectuals" can hand wave and say that capitalists are simply still in the process of shuffling production between industries. Not a problem for modern price theory chads, who have arrived at actionable theories using math, economics, facts, and logic.

>>18588159
No, they are distinct concepts. A corporation comes into being when a group of persons covenants together to create an "artificial" person treated as an actual person by the law, e.g. you may want to incorporate your business so that you can represent its business interests in court. This is a concept thoroughly discussed in Leviathan, and probably one of the most important concepts in Hobbes's social contract theory. Capitalism is defined by the ability to collect rents simply from ownership rights, e.g. landlording, stocks, et cet.

>>18588246
Didn't know Israeli Kibbutz, or the huterrites, are starving.

>>18588324
You are right, but the underlying economic system is the same. A law system that serves capital interests Is a foreseeable outcome of capitalism.

>>18588364
What is the underlying economic system?

>>18588324
If it is based on commodity, money, wage labor, a free market, Capital accumulation, it is Capitalism. Do not give a shit about your corporatism cope.
Globohomo leftist broke everybodies balls during the whole 20th century with union, and then Hitlerians pretend to reinvent the concept, giving it a different name: corporatism.
Honestly, you Hitlerians/traditionalists, are useless people.

>>18588346
Huterrites are well known for killing a hundred million Ukrainians every year.

>>18588390
capitalism
corporation still live on capital. whether or no they have an "artificial" person to the law.

>>18588212
>>18588245
So anthing involving capital = capitalism?

No wonder leftists are utterly brain damaged, jesus christ

>>18588404
An other jewish communist conspiracy.

>>18588435
If you have Capital accumulation based on wage labor surplus value, yes it's Capitalism, you unread ignorant cunt.

>>18588457
>Capital accumulation
Exists in socialist economies

>wage labor surplus value
Wage labour exists in socialist economies.

And you are supposedly "well read"?

>>18588470
>Exists in socialist economies
That's what it's called State Capitalism.
>Wage labour exists in socialist economies.
So that's why it's State Capitalism.
Some understand the second time, but for you, maybe the 157 time will be the one. You are not too bright, are you?

>>18588435
Nope, Capital is old as fuck. Ancient greeks had some capital forms of production, as in the medieval ages, lobards or jews did, even in china there were some bankers allowed by the emperor.

But most of the production didn't depend on capital like in the modernity. So it wasn't capitalism.

>>18588457
thats just capital, Capitalism is when capital becomes the norm. Corporatism is still capital.

>>18588486
So basically, it wasn't real socialism?

>>18588487
>But most of the production didn't depend on capital like in the modernity. So it wasn't capitalism.
What did the production depend on then?

How did the Roman build boats without any capital? How did the Greek?

>>18588487
>thats just capital, Capitalism is when capital becomes the norm.
Yes Capitalism happen when most of the economy is based on wage surplus labor, extracted from wage workers, and then accumulated in order to expand production.

>>18588502
serfdom, slavery, communal production forms (in some parts of the world). etc.

>>18588497
Basically, you are too stupid to understand. I won't even post for the tenth time lenin acknowledging it. I mean, it's even in wikipedias page about the New economic policy, you dumb fuck.

>>18588523
So no capital involved?

>>18588528
Yep, it's me being stupid.

we wuznt real socialism n sheeeit

>>18588502
Roman had some Capital accumulation, but Roman mostly used slaves in order to live lavish lifestyles. The average rich roman had around 10 slaves, only working for his own pleasure. This wasn't a Capital accumulation oriented economy. So basically, that's why rome collapsed. Not enough slaves anymore to capture, not enough Capital accumulation.

>>18588530
Yes they had Capital, but their economy wasn't based on constant wage labor surplus value extraction, and reinvestment in the production process, but slavery was instead based on capturing slaves, and then making them work, without any particular will to accumulate Capital.

>>18588553
>>18588573
>Roman economy wasn't capital oriented

>>18588573
What's more slaves weren't consumers. So you couldn't count on the slaves to work to produce for their own consumption, and buying their own consumption (making you richer in the process).

>>18588585
You should really know, there is a site, it's called wikipedia, it has a page, called modes of production. It details, roman slavery, feudalism, Capitalism. But i guess you only go to Bitchute and 4chan, don't you?

If you retards fuck up establishing a communist country literally every time you try I don't really care how nice your theory is.

>>18588608
>the absolute state of leftists

>>18588585
Here, retard, for you:
"Marx maintained that central to the new capitalist system was the replacement of a system of money serving as the key to commodity exchange (C-M-C, commerce), by a system of money leading (via commodities) to the re-investment of money in further production (M-C-M’, capitalism) - the new and overriding social imperative."

>>18588658
So basically, it wasn't real socialism and all successes under leftism were in fact capitalism

>>18588611
Go back live in Detroit, nigger.

>>18588225
>>plans to kill people with chemtrails
*sigh*

>>18588673
That's us libertarian marxist point of view. I mean there is a wikipedia page called state capatlism. Go read it instead of watching your daily Hitler speech on Bitchute. Or perhaps todays it was Mussolini?

>>18588391
>Trade unions are globohomo
THIS is your understanding of trade unions?
Holy Jesus...

>>18588706
Oh i think on this schizoid board, you are not a majority.

>>18588723
They lied for a whole century, pretending to defend the proletarians interest, when all they every did, was eat at the Capitalists table, playing ball with them. It's typical controlled opposition. Even if it's not even opposition, except for the NPCs.

>>18588708
Mussolini was a Marxist, that seems more up your alley.

>>18588739
as usual, there are some traitors, sellouts and so on.

without trade-unions you would be working 12 hours/day tho.

>>18588109
a corporation is literally a large capitalist enterprise. but whatever you call it, the crisis is real, and it will ultimately end with the abolition of turning money into more money by means of employing wage labour. even if you don't want to call that capitalism.

>>18588166
at the time of great depression capital wasn't on life support (the exuberance of credit and of state money printing), the world wasn't so dependent of capital (still a large preponderance of small-holding peasants capable of surviving on their own), there was much less global interconnection and interdependence making the entire system sensitive susceptible to a domino effect. there's a difference in so many aspects that trying to unreflectively equate the current situation with a mere repeat of great depression (at most) is an enormous cope

>>18588257
it can't be proven wrong because it's trivially true. but I like how the opinion is split 50/50 between "his predictions are unfalsifiable" and "his predictions have been falsified". probably depends on which 3-minute "Marx debunked" video the youtube search decides to send you to.

>>18588756
Mussolini was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party for ousting himself as anti-Marxist by picking the side of the national bourgeoisie over the international communist movement in the WW I.

>>18588758
trade unions were still at least somewhat independent at that time. they started to become completely incorporated as instruments for making the proletariat subservient to bourgeois states with the rise of fascism and with the Stalinist counter-revolution, so in the 1920. and this was ultimately solidified only after WW II, when regime unions became the norm and were ready to enter their golden era.

>>18588391
Still failing to justify how a free market, capital accumulation, and especially wage labor are essential to individuals incorporating themselves. If that's your argument, then all governments are capitalist, since government is a type of incorporation.

>>18588795
>it can't be proven wrong because it's trivially true
LVT trivially true?

A corporation is for the explicit purpose of limiting the individual's liability while allowing their time and money to be put to use in dangerous investments. It is an entity approved of by those with the monopoly of violence by state statute and hundreds of years of case law to support them, slowly chipping away at any way of truly holding them accountable. What does this mean? It means that a group of individuals with large amounts of money can make stupid risky decisions that hurt other people without any liability to themselves or their personal riches. The company is the entity liable for damages. And then guess what? They file for bankruptcy, don't pay their debtors, and reincorporate under a new name with all the previously transferable assets! Woohoo!

What happens when you can't hold capital accountable? It keeps growing and abusing it's power. It continues to exploit the laborer and propagandizing it's consumers.

And all this is baked into the law. Like jaywalking.

>>18585881
Here ya go anon

>>18588197
Its not real socialism/communism is a shit argument that only reveals how easy it is to corfupt socialism.

>>18589318
Well duh, no one likes to share except golden retrievers.

>>18589318
how are anti-socialist movements examples of how easy it is to corrupt socialism? if you want to have a semblance of a point then it should be rather about how easy it is to _defeat_ socialism.
and pointing out that calling anti-socialism socialism is an error isn't even an "argument". understanding what socialism is and what it isn't is a basic _prerequisite_ for any argument about socialism.

It was industrialization, not Capitalism all along....

>>18589432
People told me I'm using the "no true scotsman" fallacy for saying that parties that do not pursue leftist policies are not leftist.

>>18588971
>If that's your argument, then all governments are capitalist, since government is a type of incorporation.
Yes?

>>18589468
This. Constantly.
Those tards thinks that when something is called something, it must be what it is called.
Like we are in something called a democracy. So it must be a democracy.
Russia was, for the most of the 20th century, governed by something called the communist party. So it must be communist.
Strangely, they know that the federal reserve is not Federal. But when it comes to government larping as communism, they don't see the larp. Perhaps mostly because they don't want to see the larp. It's very confortable for them, and let them revel in commodity a little longer, instead of becoming true commodity abolitionists.

>>18589477
OK - then you can explain to me why capitalism is necessary for incorporation, right?

>>18585881
What? I thought Marx was a nigger?

>>18590095
Corporations have always, since the industrial era, been the bitches of the Capital. Capitalism lackeys.

>>18590191
Just because incorporation is necessary or useful to capitalism, that doesn't mean that incorporation implies capitalism.

>>18590226
Point of clarification: You are saying that capitalism needs incorporation. I'm asking why incorporation needs capitalism.

>>18590142
He was. Marx was a nigger.

>>18590241
Yes, Marx was German.

>>18585889
this is such shit advice from someone who knows fuck all about Marx

>>18585881
German Ideology.

>>18588145
>>18588197
>muh not real socialism
Imagine defending Western imperialist aggression this hard.

>>18588497
>>18588537
>it's me being stupid.
Yup.
Since there is in fact all sorts of capitalist modes, wouldn’t it stand to figure there are also several different kinds of not-capitalisms?
State-socialism is crummy. Even when done well, like in China. Which camp are you in on that? Half of them say “that’s not real socialism!” Make up your mind

>>18588528
>t. ultra leftoid

>>18585898
>predictions about what would happen in the future, which almost all were proven wrong.
sounds like bullshit but i'll bite, name 1 thing marx was wrong about?

>>18591045
t. Ultra knows something about Lenin that you don’t.

Ftfy

>>18590605
>>18590902
So it's never socialism? It's always capitalism no matter what? Got it.

>>18590591
Garbage
>>18590605
"Western Imperialist Agression" hahaha fucking tankie retard.

>>18591072
Marx said the end of slavery in the United States would result in the collapse of civilization. Marx said that the russian mir were an example of russian communism

>>18591159
Why would anyone waste their time with Marxist shit? Marxism has been counter-revolutionary since at least 1917; why would you waste time with a movement that clearly done nothing but murder its own followers and oppress the people its meant to save?

>>18591176
>Why would anyone waste their time with Christian shit? The bible has been counter-revolutionary since at least 1917; why would you waste time with a movement that clearly done nothing but murder its own followers and oppress the people its meant to save?

>>18585881
Wage labour and capital & Value price and profit for a very basic introduction to his economic thinking. The Poverty of Philosophy for something more philosophical. Other than that all 3 volumes of Capital are the largest and most influential of his works.

>>18591107
Not what I said at all. Haven’t you ever heard of a “mixed economy”? Some cappy purists cry about the social programs governments have implemented. They see the government funded healthcare systems of some countries and the US bailouts for failing businesses as the same thing.
Left-liberals want more of these Rooseveltian, European style nanny states. That is STATE SOCIALISM.

I, among many others, am anti-state. State-capitalism or state-socialism (the western or old eastern versions) doesn’t work. The state and its predatory economic system need to be cast off for a saner alternative. A different sort of socialism. Often thought of as a commune, as it is community based.
Okay?

>>18590299
Kek

>>18585881
Don't read Marx, nobody actually read Marx, and if they did they didn't have a similar interpretation to you so you'll be alone in your knowledge of his works and will only be ostracized on an island of your own thought. If you don't believe me? Just look at this thread.

>>18586402
>Dick Wolff
Does he start at feudalism? Or at the birth of the universe to make a single point? Or maybe hell give 3 different interpretations of Marx and one of them will be neoliberalism, one will be demsoc and one will be moderate communism and you'll have to figure out which one is which?

>>18588197
holy cow, you really pulled out the "it wasn't real socialism/communism" debate meme...

>>18592019
From where does this spittle-post come?

>>18591213
Yeah, why do you waste your time with the bible too? Does it remind you of Marxism since its basically an unfalsifiable religion in itself?

>>18592006
>If you don't believe me? Just look at this thread.
this thread is people who have read marx versus people who have read the wikipedia on marx

>>18592086
Why would you brag about reading Marx? He's garbage. Nothing he ever said came true. Any time socialism has been tried it has failed. What is the point?

>>18591328
Stop talking about this shit; its boring - nobody cares about your dumb utopian fantasies

>>18592108
>t. never read marx

>>18592115
Fuck Marx, and fuck communism. Its just a fucking cult of people worshiping the words of a cult leader they're too ignorant to move on from

>>18592118
>too ignorant
>has never read marx

>>18592114
Why are you bopping around this thread? Learn what I wrote or gtfo

>>18591176
The proletariat aren't the aggregate of wage-earners - Marx/Engels were clear about the role of industrialization and its impact on urban militancy.

Socialism is for bugmen who only care about productivity, consumption and work. Its basically hedonism derivative from a hard, deterministic materialism.

>>18592218
>productivity, consumption and work
you just described capitalism?

>>18592263
Are you one of those retards that think nobody works under socialism

>>18590095
>why capitalism is necessary for incorporation
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/02/28/what-if-the-government-is-just-another-firm-part-2/
"So why can’t undeveloped societies have large governments? Probably because if they tried, they’d starve. I’m not joking. Governments, as a rule, don’t farm. So their existence depends on farmers producing a surplus. If you try to build a big government on the backs of subsistence farmers, you have a problem. The farmers can feed themselves, or they can feed government bureaucrats. Either way, somebody starves (usually the peasants).
Framed this way, it’s unsurprising that the history of communism is tied to starvation. Think of Holodomor, the Ukrainian famine caused by Stalin. Think of the Great Chinese Famine caused by Mao. These famines occurred as communist governments aggressively expanded, but farming productivity didn’t keep up. And so peasants starved."

>>18585881
>non autistic beginner works about Marxism?
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2019/05/29/the-allure-of-marxism-and-why-its-a-mistake/

>>18592218
This is only true for the person who makes Socialism into a religion.

>>18592218
>Socialism is for bugmen who only care about productivity
Distributism >>>>> shit > piss > socialism

>>18592496
Socialism is a religion no matter how you cut it. It preaches the gospel of a human nature that will never exist. Humans are egotistic, competitive and heartless. Socialism is a feeble, naive attempt to deny biological truths about human reality. These idiots actually believe we can create a world of abundance from scarcity and laziness.

>>18592507
>Humans are egotistic, competitive and heartless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Be_Greedy
"[t]he positive conception of egoism, the perspective of communist egoism, is the very heart and unity of our theoretical and practical coherence"

>>18592518
Stirner hated communism; this merger of them is autistic. Communism could never be egotistic because its a cult of altruism

>>18592615
>Stirner hated communism; this merger of them is autistic
Mutationists hated darwinism; the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution is autistic

>>18591159
>Marx said that the russian mir were an example of russian communism
Lel. The mir were the ones begging the Russian Emperor to institute private property because communalism sucked so much. Eventually Stolypin (at the behest of the Tsar) allowed peasants to own their own land, and the peasants basically became wealthy farmers in their own right (until the Jewish hit squad arrived in Petersburg).

>>18585881
Kolakowski is off his fucking nut politically, but when it comes to his history of bourgeois German idealism, "Main Currents of Marxism" (3 vols.) this is an adequate account of Marxism as a form of German idealism up to about 1956. Kolakowski fails to deal with more recent main currents, in part due to innovations happening around him being unable to be historically contextualised, in part because he was writing 60+ years ago.

Kolakowski is a mega cunt. But he's a philosopher. No, really. Which means that he doesn't lie when he analyses Marxism from an idealist perspective.

The problem with reading Kolakowski is that its an anti-praxic account. Marxism as an ideology is anti-praxic. To overcome this limitation you should read accounts of actual workers struggle. These are surprisingly hard to come by because snitches get stitches and don't talk to cops. I'd suggest Melvyn Dubofsky on the IWW, Harry Braverman Labour and Monopoly Capital. They're entries with a US context. Look for histories of strikes. Strikes are way more important than revolutions. Because you can't build a revolution but you can build a union that can strike.

If you're an anti-praxic bourgeois idealist "leninist" party leader, hang yourself.

>>18592668
AM I SERIOUSLY THE FIRST CUNT TO MENTION KOLAKOWSKI IN THIS THREAD?

YOU'RE ALL FUCKING USELESS. IT IS THE SEMINAL HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY WORK ON MARXISM AS A GERMAN IDEALISM FOR FUCKS SAKE. IT IS A CORE CRITIQUE OF MARXISM FROM A HYSTERICALLY SELF-DEGRADING BOURGEOIS IDEALIST PERSPECTIVE LAPSING TOWARDS REACTION. IT IS LIKE THE ENTRY LEVEL CRITIQUE OF MARXISM WORTH DEALING WITH. AND I AM THE FIRST CUNT TO MENTION HIM?

AND I'M A FUCKING KAPD LIBCOM?

Jesus fuck right wing /lit/ get your fucking shit together. Your esoteric meme magic crap is masturbatory, but won't get you a tenyeared position like critiquing Kolakowski from Kolakowski's position.

>>18592693
>AM I SERIOUSLY THE FIRST CUNT TO MENTION KOLAKOWSKI IN THIS THREAD?
>>18586268

>>18592699
Thanks, I did a loose text search for Kołakowski.

For a second there I thought /lit/ had really failed. Looks like I won't be killing myself tonight.

>>18586887
Checked out the book this anon mentioned and it seems like the best rec so far. A bit expensive though...

>>18592693
Get a life.

>>18592823
>>>18592693 (You)
(You)

>>18591159
>Marx said the end of slavery in the United States would result in the collapse of civilization.
no, he only said that it was crucial to the development of capitalism in one point in time, which is true.
>Marx said that the russian mir were an example of russian communism
the russian mir was a remainder of primitive communism, yes. even though it was already in the process of decomposition at Marx's time.

>>18591328
this thread is about Marxism. nobody asked about incoherent romantic liberal fantasies

>>18592867
>this thread is about Marxism. nobody asked about incoherent romantic liberal fantasies
Now who is being naïve?

>>18592351
Are you one of those retards that think nobody works under capitalism?

>>18592645
>2021
>Believs in evolution

>>18592716
lib gen / z-lib

>>18592867
>the russian mir was a remainder of primitive communism, ye
It was established in its own right in the mid-late 1800s as part of the feudal reform program. In Marx's time the mir was actually a remnant of feudal serfdom until the nominal abolishment. Your history is off.

Capitalism has gone too far

>>18585881
How does one live like this and not be itchy as fuck all of the time?

How do fucking SLEEP with a head of hair like that?

>>18593118
You wash it every two weeks and comb it four times a day with a curry comb. Also people in the 19th century were more tolerant of being itchy. Read Marx's pathetic physical complaints.

>>18592969
lol moron. the mir started as an ancient primitive communist local community and largely preserved this organization throughout the entire feudal period

>The village community formed the world for the peasants.... Thus mir [rus. the world] was, in all probability, a peasant-given name for a spontaneously generated peasant organization in early Kievian or pre-Kievian times. It was mentioned in the eleventh century in the first codification of the Russian law....
J. R. Millar, Encyclopedia of Russian History, Vol. 3

>Communal land ownership of the mir predated serfdom, surviving emancipation and the Russian Revolution. Until the abolition of serfdom in 1861, the mir could either contain serfs or free peasants. In the first case, lands reserved for serf use were assigned to the mir for allocation by the proprietor.
English wikipedia article "Obshchina"

>>18585881
I'm not sure why there are still threads about Marx on 4chan. There will NEVER be a thread about this man worth reading on this entire website. Just read his works in chronological order and find some college lectures online if you need some help understanding what you've read. Marx is a great philosopher and everyone has something to gain from reading his work; I truly don't think anyone who actually reads Marx (not just his wikipedia article) will believe they wasted their time when they finish.

>>18593380
I have to agree. Engels is so obviously superior.

Communism isn't real and Marx was a spook to undermine real labor unions

http://mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf

>>18592867
>no, he only said that it was crucial to the development of capitalism in one point in time, which is true.
Wow, you are lying through teeth, retard. He literally said this in the poverty of philosophy Proudhon.
>"Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations."
>"the russian mir was a remainder of primitive communism, yes. even though it was already in the process of decomposition at Marx's time."
This is also wrong too, retard, the Mir were never communist. They were private land holdings. Even Charles Battelheim thought such ideas were fucking ridiculous nigga.

>>18592867
>Liberalism. Use capitalism to get to paradise bro
>Marxism. Use capitalism to get to communism bru
>anarchism. State-capitalism is the poison we’re trying to avoid

Camatte

>>18585881

>>18592507
>The essenes never existed. Nor do the Huterrites, or the Israeli Kibbutzim. It's a hoax.

>>18594698
Mashallah

>>18594333
>>18592149
>>18592058
>>18591328
>>18591084
>>18590902
>>18586402

>>18594698
Is that the religion were you had one guy having all the females, and put a veil on them, because it would made the incels seethe?

>>18594296
>Wow, you are lying through teeth, retard. He literally said this in the poverty of philosophy Proudhon.
I know what he wrote because I re-read it before responding. and this literally confirms what I said, i.e. that he said slavery was crucial to the development of capitalism at that time. he didn't say that it will remain so for the entire lifespan of capitalism. if he thought so, slavery would've played a major part in his explanation of capitalism in Capital. but instead he contrasted capitalist society with slave society:
>What distinguishes the various economic formations of society — the distinction between for example a society based on slave-labour and a society based on wage-labour — is the form in which this surplus labour is in each case extorted from the immediate producer, the worker.
he never thought slavery as belonging to the essence of capitalism, but as a temporarily needed crutch, borrowed from an earlier mode of prod.
in a footnote to that fragment in the Poverty of Philosophy Engels explained why that crutch was needed and why it could be thrown later:
>This was perfectly correct for the year 1847. At that time the world trade of the United States was limited mainly to import of immigrants and industrial products, and export of cotton and tobacco, i.e., of the products of southern slave labour. The Northern States produced mainly corn and meat for the slave states. It was only when the North produced corn and meat for export and also became an industrial country, and when the American cotton monopoly had to face powerful competition, in India, Egypt, Brazil, etc., that the abolition of slavery became possible. And even then this led to the ruin of the South, which did not succeed in replacing the open Negro slavery by the disguised slavery of Indian and Chinese coolies

>>18594296
>the Mir were never communist. They were private land holdings
they were primitive-communist, the land was held in common by the community and allocated between families to work on.
>Mir, or Obshchina, was the name of peasant village communities, as opposed to individual farmsteads... in the Imperial Russia. The term derives from the word “oбщий”, meaning “common”. The vast majority of Russian peasants held their land in communal ownership within a mir community, which acted as a village government and a cooperative. Arable land was divided in sections based on the soil quality and the distance from the village. Each household had a right to claim one or more strips from each section, depending on the number of adults in the household. Strips were periodically re-allocated on the basis of a census, to ensure an equitable share of the land.
https://www.ismu.baikal.ru/src/downloads/026df98c_zavialov_-_history_of_russia.pdf
you're probably confusing "primitive communism" with communism proper or with communist society. the former involves communal ownership and production at the level of the local community, nothing more.

>>18594296
>>18596387
as for the Battelheim dude, he was a bourgeois academic cretin who somehow fell for the Stalinist counter-revolution and then for Mao's bourgeois revolution, thinking they were communist. such a person will believe all kinds of ridiculous shit and in academia they will be often rewarded for that with a career if they agree to pour their efforts into revising and undermining Marxism from the position of the left wing of Capital

>>18592693
Least autistic leftcom

>>18592693
Least autistic libcom

>>18585881
Just a note, don't let anyone tell you Chinese marxists after Mao are irrelevant. Deng Xiaoping and marxists after him are the most relevant and modern

>>18585881
Reader in Marxist Social Science
Reader in Marxist Philosophy
Socialism, Utopian and Scientific
The first two contain various excerpts from the works of mainly Marx and Engels, with a few smatterings of Lenin here and there. The last is an eighty page excerpt from Engel's Anti-Duhring in which he traces the development from its early "utopian" socialist roots in Saint-Simonianism until the development of "scientific" socialism by him and Marx.

>>18585889
the whole concept that you can even extract materialism from Hegel is inane and undermines everything remotely insightful about Hegel's already warped view of the Platonic dialectic. Read Marx for the curiosity factor but there is nothing meaningful to be garnered from it; it is merely tired, materialist eschatology.

>>18585881
>/lit/ still has a hard-on for Marx
hilarious and utterly symbolic of this dumpster

>>18585881
Michael Heinrich's introduction
>>18585889
You should read Hegel after you read Marx

>>18585881
Michael Heinrich's introduction. Also watch every talk that is up on YouTube from Michael Heinrich and Moishe Postone.
>>18585889
You would profit more from reading Hegel after Marx
>>18586402
Wolff blows

>>18597729
>Wolff blows my mind
But tell us why

>>18597743
I have have told you why before

>>18597743
His co-op rhetoric tends to fall in with market socialism and sometimes even descends into pretty typical ancap argumentation (but like For The Workers or whatever) and its just really unappealing to me. There is plenty to like about co-ops, but at best they lead to a nicer form of capitalism with redistributed profit. The problem with capitalism, for Marx, is not exploitation of surplus value or rents on capital like it is for Ricardians. The problem is capitalism itself. There is no real inherent problem with co-ops; on average they survive longer than non-worker managed firms and have slightly higher per head productivity. In empirical economics the big issue with them is thought to be cream skimming, but this seems outweighed by advantages. The problem is the idea of a non-capitalist enclave. Capitalism, in the sense of domination by capital, is with you with the prices that go into your firm's inputs, with the money form by which your commodities are mutually exchangeable firms under capitalism (and competition) do not have agency to do anything other than that which maximizes the rate of expansion of value. Whether that profit goes to workers or dividends is incidental.

>>18597743
Also he’s the poster boy for the potential dangers of “accessibility” (what is it that is being accessed other than Bullshit Marxism, etc).

>>18597751
>market socialism
So Marxism
> descends into pretty typical ancap argumentation (but like For The Workers or whatever
>It’s like this (but not)
Okay.
For me, it’s an ingredient and maybe a catalyst to something greater. As the whole “defund the police” call could also have led to communities organizing their own protection, WSDE coops could also lead to much needed organizing. We need to get an avalanche going, but which key stones do we pry loose, anon?

>>18597815
>>market socialism
>So Marxism
no

>>18585954
>>18585898
These are the brainlets who think they “outsmarted” Marx’s theories. They can’t even coherently explain historical materialism

>>18588109
>NOOOOOOO ITS NOT CAPITALISM ITS CRONY CAPITALISM

This is the most brainwashed thing I have seen on this website

>>18588537
Imagine thinking capitalism is “working” right now, utter bootlicker delusion

>>18586096
Lmao

>>18585881
>non autistic
>marxism

>>18596387
You are illiterate. You intentionally reading it wrong, and this is what Marxists do when reality kills you. The quote explitically says Marx thought civilization would collapse if slavery disappeared - the foot doesn't change the fact that he was wrong, in fact, it implies he was wrong because clearly it was a prediction.
>as for the Battelheim dude, he was a bourgeois academic cretin who somehow fell for the Stalinist counter-revolution
Lmao, you just proved you're a psuedo and you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Battelheim rejected Leninism and Bolshevism you fucking retard. Chattopadhyay was a student of Battelheim.

>>18585881

You should read Heinrich's introduction to Marx's Capital and, if you are interested in the more technical aspects, his Die Wissenschaft Vom Wert, his 1992 dissertation which has yet to be translated into English.

I'd then read Marx's Inferno by William Clare Roberts. The first chapter explains why starting with Capital is probably the best idea. In the modern scholarship, it's all but definitively proved that Marx himself thought there was a division between the Young and Old Marx, and that Capital Vol. 1, as his only mature work presented for publication, is the most comphrensive for understanding his thought. People may tell you to read any of his prior essays/notebooks/manuscripts, but you are much more likely to get confused.

If you are the type that is interested in the philosophical background (Roberts is best for political context IMO), I would recommend Allen Wood's Marx.

The works I recommended are inflected toward the Neue-Marx Lektüre school of interpretation, but modern Marx scholarship, if not analytic drivel, has really cemented around these readings.

>>18597729
I'd agree with this - I'd really tackle Hegel after Marx - it's too difficult, and unlikely to be fruitful, to tease out the relation between Hegel and Marx, esp. for a beginning student without collapsing into some crude materialism (i.e. inversion of hegelian dialectic), much less contextualize his breaks with Hegel.

Shklar, Taylor, and Wood are indispensable sources for understanding Hegel.

>>18597815
>market socialism
>So Marxism
Marx:
>Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products

>For me, it’s an ingredient and maybe a catalyst to something greater.
falsifying Marxism is a catalyst to nothing but further defeats of the proletariat as it deprives it of its theoretical weapon. for Wolff socialism starts and ends with his stupid co-ops. he says nothing about the necessity of independent unitary organization of the proletariat and of its necessary conquest of political power. he just peddles faux-revolutionary garbage with a fake Marxist flavor to middle class university students who yearn for a petty bourgeois utopia where everyone is a small entrepreneur and doesn't have to answer to a boss.
the way for the proletariat is cooperation and conquest of political power, not market competition between worker-owned capitalist enterprises.
>WSDE coops could also lead to much needed organizing
if you want to "organize", then you go where the advanced elements of the working class are gathering, see how they're expressing themselves, and work to unite those expressions. this has nothing to do with peddling panacea to petty bourgeois kids through podcasts and patreon.

>>18598188
>The quote explitically says Marx thought civilization would collapse if slavery disappeared
yes, he indeed thought the slavery in the US was necessary for world economy at that time. and I already quoted Engels explaining why it was necessary at the time Marx was writing that and why it later became possible to abolish it
>You are illiterate. You intentionally reading it wrong
are you shitting me? all of this started by you or somebody else intentionally reading "slavery is necessary for capitalism now" as a prediction in the vein of "slavery will be always necessary for capitalism". the latter is not only not in the text, but it's also contradicted by other writings of Marx, which identify as the essential relation of capitalism wage-labour, where the worker is the owner of his labour power, not slave labour, where the worker is a part of the means of production.
there are many similar examples. absolute monarchy was necessary at one point of the capitalist development, because it was a crucial instrument through which the still relatively weak, nascent bourgeoisie was able to assert its interests against local feudal privilege. take the absolute monarchy away, and the bourgeoisie can't get a foothold against the aristocracy. does that mean capitalism requires absolute monarchy at all times? no, that's the kind of a retarded conclusion that only approaching historical matters ahistorically can yield
>Battelheim rejected Leninism and Bolshevism you fucking retard.
yes, did I stutter? he joined the Stalinist French CP just a few years after the Stalinists have defeated the communists, reducing the Comintern parties into instruments of the capitalist development of the Russian state

>>18597815
butters it's precisely people like you who fuck the left of any real chance

>>18585881
For the past 6 month I thoght the bust of claudius was Augustus because I thought Augustus looked too germanic.

>>18594680
This

>>18599590
>People like David Graeber, James Herod and Butters are ruining the left
>Not Lenin, Stalin, Chomsky, SJW, Zerzan, Contrapoints, Maupin, AOC, DSA, and the other fuckups and plants

>>18599240
>yes, he indeed thought the slavery in the US was necessary for world economy at that time. and I already quoted Engels explaining why it was necessary at the time Marx was writing that and why it later became possible to abolish it
You asked when Marx was wrong; I literally gave you an example where he was, and you continue back track. Be consistent, Anon. The irony of you criticizing Battleheim is even more fucking hilarious because his support of the USSR is the same reason Marx was wrong here - he didn't have all the information about what happened in the USSR or China. Are you retarded? We really had no clue about the nature of the USSR until way until the 80s and 90s when the archives were opened up. That's why Battelheim later in life rejected Leninism and Bolshevikism. At the end of his work, Class Struggles in the USSR Part 3, he denounces both China and Russia as bourgeois revolutions - calling the later a coup.

>>18599240
>he says nothing about the necessity of independent unitary organization of the proletariat and of its necessary conquest of political power.
That’s what a co-op is for. It happens that way. I guess Wolff has read a little history along with his Marx.
> middle class university students
Anybody can watch the Tunes, dude
> if you want to "organize", then you go where the advanced elements of the working class are gathering
What?

>>18599240
>he says nothing about the necessity of independent unitary organization of the proletariat and of its necessary conquest of political power.
That’s what a co-op is for. It happens that way. I guess Wolff has read a little history along with his Marx.
> middle class university students
Anybody can watch the Tubes, dude
> if you want to "organize", then you go where the advanced elements of the working class are gathering
What?

>>18601688
>You asked when Marx was wrong; I literally gave you an example where he was, and you continue back track.
except he was completely right in the example you gave and I explained why multiple times already. can't do much more
>he didn't have all the information about what happened in the USSR or China.
you didn't need "all the information" to correctly recognize what had happened in the USSR and later in China
>We really had no clue about the nature of the USSR until way until the 80s and 90s when the archives were opened up.
that's weird, because there are hundreds of pages of detailed analyses of Russian capitalism and its recent history already in the 50s. and the counter-revolutionary turn could be clearly perceived already in the publicly known Comintern policy of the late 1920s and early 1930s. as for China, reading Mao's works from the 1940s would've sufficed, for example.
>That's why Battelheim later in life rejected Leninism and Bolshevikism.
he already rejected it in 1930s by joining those that were in the process of removing the remains of bolshevism along with any danger of its possible restoration. I don't really care about his life story or about what he thought. my point is that he was provenly clinically retarded so "even Battelheim rejected X" doesn't say anything about whether X is true or false. you might as well throw a dice.

>>18601795
>That’s what a co-op is for.
a co-op enterprise is not a unitary organization of the proletariat. more like a fragmented dis-organization of the proletariat. and 20 people running a company isn't class conquest of political power either.
>It happens that way. I guess Wolff has read a little history along with his Marx.
both the Paris Communards and the Russian proletariat took to the streets as one and grabbed power by force. co-ops played no role in that. Wolff might have read a little history, but his shtick definitely depends on his philistine audience not having done the same
>Anybody can watch the Tubes, dude
anybody can, but not anybody does. and different channels have their specific demographics. -- "peppa pig official channel is watched by kids and sometimes their parents". -- "actually, anybody can watch the tubes, dude". lmao
>What?
as a Wolfffriend you might not be aware of that fact, but some workers actually go out and fight for their needs. if "organizing" is to have any meaning, then it's seeking them out where they do that and working to aid and link those various partial struggles.

>>18601903
So you don’t like the scale of this unite. You expect it to be on some macro level on day one? This is just smelling of disingenuous blather.

> anybody can, but not anybody does.
We need to get the word out, we need to grow. We cannot have the fully grown garden until seeds are planted.

>then it's seeking them out where they do that and working to aid and link those various partial struggles.
And where is this happening?
With the “history” comment I was alluding to Chiapas, Kurds and Argentine etc. but what are you alluding to?

>>18601958
>scale of this unit*

>>18601958
>So you don’t like the scale of this unite
people already work together. converting their workplaces to co-ops doesn't unite them beyond that. in fact that may lead to disunity when partial struggles against the owners that can be linked up between multiple enterprises are turned into market competition between different worker-owned enterprises.
>You expect it to be on some macro level on day one?
we aren't at day one. there are ongoing strikes and protests all over the world and what I expect are attempts at linking them up beyond workplace, trade and even state limits. co-ops are irrelevant for that.
>And where is this happening?
partial struggles and attempts at reaching out beyond their limits? pretty much everywhere
>With the “history” comment I was alluding to Chiapas, Kurds and Argentine etc. but what are you alluding to?
I was talking about historical proletarian revolutions and how co-ops didn't play a role in them. I don't see proletarian dictatorships in the places you mention, so I don't know how's they're supposed to prove that proletarian unification and seizure of power somehow proceed by means of co-ops.

>>18601958
>>18602060
in fact a co-op movement killed the revolution in Italy after WW I. the workers seized factories instead of going out to the streets and seizing power. the government just waited them out. Wolff's wet dream (as long as they would subscribe to his patreon using the seized factory cash)

>>18602060
>a patch of dirt is already a garden if you squint hard enough.
We aren’t at day one and you don’t advocate ever getting there. You just claim they’re working together already and we don’t need anything else. Your to axe grind with Wolff is bizarre. Just say it doesn’t go far enough or something. No, you advocate sitting still. The protests in the US that I’ve seen are controlled pacifist deals, but I hope there are genuine ones building, but strikes are asking permission. I promote organizing whole neighborhoods, but WSDEs right along with them is certainly necessary.
> and how co-ops didn't play a role in them.
Catalonia, anon. Workers taking control of their workplaces.

And fascists killed the Italian socialists

>>18602060
And you seem schizophrenic on the course to take. All or nothing and it’s happening now in small ways. Wolff’s is just more small ways. Like Cockshott’s Towards a New Socialism is just what currency could be used.

Currently finishing up this book. I am well aware we need several things to align here

> Exclusive reliance on building alternatives — to sustain us, make the state obsolete, and heal us from this violence to prevent “auto-destruction” — is also not an option, because the state can crush alternatives that cannot defend themselves

>>18588096
This is absurd. It´s like saying I can´t defend black´s exploitation because I´m not black.

>>18602286
>You just claim they’re working together already and we don’t need anything else.
holy shit, you're illiterate
>Catalonia, anon. Workers taking control of their workplaces.
and they remained subservient to the political control of a front that was dominated by bourgeois and petty bourgeois interests and was realizing an entirely bourgeois program. so much for an example of an independent political organization of the working class that seized political power
>And fascists killed the Italian socialists
fascist backlash came AFTER socialists failed to seize power because of lack of political action following the seizure of factories.

>>18602533
>and they remained subservient to the political control of a front that was dominated by bourgeois and petty bourgeois interests and was realizing an entirely bourgeois program. so much for an example of an independent political organization of the working class that seized political power
This come from Stalin University?
> fascist backlash came AFTER socialists failed to seize power because of lack of political action following the seizure of factories.
Yes, the old “workers seizing control of the means of production” is a half measure. We get it. Don’t neglect it however. Seize it all. But develop it. Wolff doesn’t go far enough, he can’t, by law, advocate insurrection. He is nudging people in that direction only. Gimme a break already.

>>18602609
>This come from Stalin University?
no, Stalinist actually formed part of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois political aggregate that Catalonian workers were subservient to
>Yes, the old “workers seizing control of the means of production” is a half measure.
that's not seizing control of the means of production. the working class doesn't truly control the means of production until it has political power in its hands
>Wolff doesn’t go far enough, he can’t, by law, advocate insurrection.
I'm sure it's also the law that prevents him from advocating for independent political organization of the proletariat as well as forces forces him to falsify Marxism and agitate for bourgeois politicians
>He is nudging people in that direction only.
he's nudging students with spare cash in the direction of his Patreon and in the direction of posting uninformed opinions about socialism and shilling for his stuff on the internet

>>18602609
>>18602957
Stalinists*

>>18602286
>And fascists killed the Italian socialists
True, and I'd do it again.

>>18602957
>seizing control of the means of production isn’t seizing control of the means of production!
>we don’t need a social revolution! We need another political revolution
Fucking tankie bitch

>>18600452
>People like David Graeber, James Herod and Butters are ruining the left
yes
>Not Lenin, Stalin
yes
>Chomsky, SJW, Zerzan, Contrapoints, Maupin, AOC, DSA, and the other fuckups and plants
>Comparing these retards to Lenin and Stalin
lmfao time to read a real book sweatie

>>18594333
Anarchists should be killed on the principle that their ethics cannot justify anyone else not killing them

>>18603461
*Shoots*

>>18603443
>Stalinist
*Shoots*

>>18603685
>Stalinist
you mean ML, twitter faggot?

>>18585881
OP, forget about the other 230 posts in this thread and just pick up what students (both undergrad and graduate-level) use for their Marx. It's a great collection covering the entirety of Marx's thought and has a significant amount of Engels as well. The introduction very succinctly explains Marx's connection with Hegel, and all the major ideas of Marx are in this work. It is outstanding both as a primary text and as a reference text.

Ignore the bickering in this thread. Any individual attempting to enrich his view of the world and its major ideas needs to familiarize himself with Marx, not only because of the past historical significance but also because it ultimately gave rise to many of today's most penetrating critiques of today (and many of the most awful ones), as well as to the social "sciences".

>>18585881
Marxism began when Engels gave Marx some of his fathers money. Marx was hooked for life, and would tell Engels whatever would keep the money flowing.

>>18604172
I mean tanky, I mean counterrevolutionary.

>>18604247
You don’t understand how people worked back then, much less WRITERS.

>>18603140
>seizing control of the means of production isn’t seizing control of the means of production!
the workers don't control the means of production when they just occupy a bunch of factories while the bourgeoisie controls the police, the army, and the entire state machine. for being in real control of the means of production the proletariat must be able to produce and distribute according to its class interest. simple occupation of workplaces doesn't give you that.
>we don’t need a social revolution! We need another political revolution
a social revolution can't happen with the conservative class wielding political power
>Fucking tankie bitch
you're on the side of the tankies, not me. in the 1950s tankies too tried to trick the workers of Russian satellites into believing that self-management of individual factories under the capitalist state amounts to socialism. they knew they were safe as long as they were in control of the states. the tanks would come out only when the workers were becoming too political and wanted to actually make broad decisions instead of just producing what is demanded by the world markets and the capitalist state.

>>18604247
Marx could've became an academic whore of the German elites and lived a comfortable if he wanted.

>>18604247
>refusing to be a wageslave and instead devote his life to fight the system

based.