/marx/ - marks general

[Anonymous No.19208775]

how are my fellow marxist sadgrrlz and bois suffering so far in this cesspit we found ourselves in together?
i seem to be currently slogging through the Political Writings anthology by Verso in between blinking out of consciousness

some links to help start off this thread hopefully:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNLxbmnfKM
https://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1945/05/bombacci.htm

[Anonymous No.19208783]

>>19208775
LTV is retarded you should all kys at the first available opportunity

[Anonymous No.19208787]

go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.19208842]

oh yeah, speaking of italians, have this translation of a bordiga tv interview: https://www.docdroid.net/V4aLUSZ/fragments-of-an-interview-with-amadeo-bordiga-pdf
the interview itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiMVz-KtKCw

[Anonymous No.19210282]

>>19208783
The LTV still kind of holds up, I think. Obviously you can get filthy rich from speculation and market gambling in general and the like, but it still doesn’t make you Wealthy.

[Anonymous No.19210286]

>>19208775
>marks

[Anonymous No.19210321]

>>19208775
>>19208842
God I fucking hate Bofogna...

[Anonymous No.19211279]

>>19208775
not a marxist but that serge text was an interesting read.

[Anonymous No.19211457]

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

[Anonymous No.19211531]

>>19211457
>If exchange exists, then a division of labor is implied. I only exchange for things that I do not myself produce. Division of labor is a precondition of exchange, but exchange is not a precondition for the division of labor, as a glance at any factory would confirm: within a factory, there is a high level of division of labor, but the products themselves are not exchanged for one another. (p43-44)
???
This is a non-sequitur is it not? The specialised workers within a factory have to exchange their labour, via the intermediary of wages, for a variety of goods to meet all their needs. Wherever there is divison of labour there is necessarily exchange, life requires multiple goods and services, if you only produce one good or service, like a specialised labour role in a factory, you have to exchange it for all the others in order to keep living.

[Anonymous No.19211542]

>>19208775
The only coherent form of Marxism nowadays is left-wing accelerationism. We need to multiply the contradictions within capitalism in order to accelerate its collapse.

[Anonymous No.19211604]

I’m pioneering praxis at work with colleagues as part of my sixty hour weeks.

[Anonymous No.19211911]

>>19211457
>Value-constituting labor-time (or the magnitude of abstract labor) cannot be measured before, only during exchange—and when the values of all commodities are set into relation with one another, then this act of measuring can only be conducted by means of money.
But if value can only be measured during acts of exchange how can the values of *all* commodities be set in relation with one another? They would all need to be actually exchanged with eachother to determine their values.

When are they all supposed to be "set" in relation with eachother? Is it on the same day, the day of the exchange, the day of their production, a random day plucked out of the aether?

[Anonymous No.19211944]

>>19211911
marx was a minor ricardian who lucked out by becoming the basis of a large european empire's state religion. it's not sound economics.

[Anonymous No.19211969]

Can you not talk like a fucking faggot if you're trying to proselytize Marx? You're cementing the perception that everybody interested in Marx is a twitter tourist homosexual.

[Anonymous No.19212003]

>>19211969
>everybody interested in Marx is a twitter tourist homosexual.
Marxist-Leninists already do that by choosing red and yellow for their colors. Red and White would be acceptable, red and yellow is just cringe.

[Anonymous No.19212005]

>>19208787
I did, but I only came back with this quote
>What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is the worldly god? Money.
On that note, you'd think antisemites would be less fervently procapital

[Anonymous No.19212009]

>>19211969
>everybody interested in Marx is a twitter tourist homosexual.
Yes

[Anonymous No.19212013]

>>19212005
They mostly reject the category of capital entirely, using categories like usury, corruption, currency dilution etc instead to describe the things they don't like in our economic systems.

[Anonymous No.19212025]

>>19208775
Marxism is the proto religion of weakness and mental suffering because you never take your life into your own hands.
Suffer more and dilate.

[Anonymous No.19212039]

>>19208775
hi, just coming into this thread to tell you to fucking kill yourself. i wish misery on every stage of your life from here onward.

[Anonymous No.19212086]

>>19212025
>>19212039
fuck off back to nature, subhumans

[Anonymous No.19212114]

>>19212025
>didn't pull the pin
lol monke

[Anonymous No.19212185]

you say you hate the global capitalist class and have all the answers, yet you inject their "medicine" straight into your veins like a retard farm animal. you should trust your fellow civilian who keeps getting maimed over government propaganda through infiltrated national governments. don't be like the others who don't even feel a need to even try to investigate it for yourself--you might just be surprised at what you find. for starters
https://t.me/s/covidvaccineinjuries
ignore and scoff at your own peril

[Anonymous No.19212254]

>>19208775
>how are my fellow marxist sadgrrlz and bois suffering so far in this cesspit we found ourselves in together?
also yeah like that other anon said
you would do well to not talk like a faggot

[Anonymous No.19214001]

>>19212254
not a cuck that wants to appeal to reactionaries with smelly dicks, sorry

[v_v !!2r81wLbFwTA No.19214023]

>>19211911
it's not "value" that can only be measured during exchange, it's "the magnitude of abstract labor". you're thinking way too hard into individual parts of the text
i assume you're quoting heinrich's intro?

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19214027]

>>19211911
it's not "value" that can only be measured during exchange, it's "the magnitude of abstract labor". you're thinking way too hard into individual parts of the text
i assume you're quoting heinrich's intro?

[Anonymous No.19214068]

>>19214001
If it talks like a cuck, it probably is a cuck

[Anonymous No.19214262]

>>19208775
>>/leftypol/
>>/his/

[Anonymous No.19214310]

>>19208775
Daily reminder that Fascism is the conclusion of "die rücksichtlose Kritik alles Bestehenden", and thus Marxism.

Daily reminder Marx wasn't a Materialist in the ordinary sense.

Daily reminder to read early Marx and the Paris Manuscripts.

Daily Reminder to read Sorel.

Daily Reminder that every existing 'Socialist' government was reactionary.

Daily reminder Mussolini was right.

[Anonymous No.19214322]

>>19208775
>>19214310
Also
>Nicola Bombacci
>Stalin will never make socialism; rather Mussolini will.
1945, to a crowd in Genoa, as quoted in Mussolini (2011) by R.J.B Bosworth, p. 511

[Anonymous No.19214366]

>>19214310