Marx

[Anonymous No.19653856]

Recommend me a good introduction to Marx, /lit/. I’m currently reading Balibar’s The Philosophy of Marx, but I’d like some alternatives.

[Anonymous No.19653871]

>>19653856
Read Hegel then read Marx

[Anonymous No.19653883]

>>19653871

[Anonymous No.19653982]

>>19653871
>Read Hegel
Literally impenetrable, just get the general gist of what the young hegelians were contesting

[Anonymous No.19654175]

>>19653856
>principles of communism
>critique of the gotha programme
>comunist manifesto
>socialism utopic and scientific
>theses on feuerbach
>wage, prices and profit
>lenin
>whatever else you want

[Anonymous No.19654181]

>>19653856

[Anonymous No.19654205]

Robert Tucker's introduction is great. If you read that and then read the first volume of Kolakowski, you will at least be able to direct your own reading from that point on. I also like Lefebvre's Sociology of Marx, and Sidney Hook's From Hegel to Marx, and this as an overview:
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/hook/1933/understanding-marx/index.htm

Make sure to read Sorel's "Decomposition of Marxism," which you can get in Horowitz's Radicalism and the Revolt against Reason: The Social Theories of Georges Sorel.

Then read A. James Gregor and Zeev Sternhell on how syndicalism grew out of Marxism to become fascism.

[Anonymous No.19655577]

Recommend me good anti-Marx lit

[Anonymous No.19655652]

>>19654205
>read all these secondary sources blah blah blah
OP don't listen to midwits like this - just read the primary material.

[Anonymous No.19655671]

>>19655577
KJV Bible

[Anonymous No.19655698]

>>19655577

Economics for Business, 2019, John Sloman

[Anonymous No.19655708]

>>19655577
start with the ancaps

[Anonymous No.19655729]

>>19655652
The primary material that was misread as bourgeois "classical" economics during Marx's and Engels' own lifetimes? The primary material of Marxism, whose central thesis is dialectical materialism, which is why so many of Marx's texts are themselves framed as histories of his predecessors, as a form of immanent critique? Yeah, don't ever read HISTORIES of that.

Don't read Engels either, since that's not primary material, and Engels has a fundamentally bourgeois perspective that falls far short of Marx's historical materialist perspective. And if you disagree on this point, that's unfortunate, because the best way to clear the dispute up would be by consulting classical secondary sources like Lukacs that describe it succinctly. But all we're allowed to do is read Capital.

Don't read Capital with a group, either. You don't know what secondary sources they've been reading. Just read Capital, one of the most misinterpreted and contentious texts in the history of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19655733]

>>19655698
Of all the classical econ textbooks you could have recommended as an epic le basic economics slam dunkaroo twitter 100, you chose this literal who. Why

[Anonymous No.19655746]

>>19655733

>Of all the classical econ textbooks you could have recommended as an epic le basic economics slam dunkaroo twitter 100, you chose this literal who. Why

It was my Economics textbook for my triple crown MBA and I wanted to recommend something I read thoroughly.

[Anonymous No.19655750]

>>19655729
>The primary material that was misread as bourgeois "classical" economics during Marx's and Engels' own lifetimes?
And?
>The primary material of Marxism, whose central thesis is dialectical materialism, which is why so many of Marx's texts are themselves framed as histories of his predecessors, as a form of immanent critique? Yeah, don't ever read HISTORIES of that.
And?
>Engels has a fundamentally bourgeois perspective
And?
>that falls far short of Marx's historical materialist perspective.
Proof?
>Don't read Capital with a group, either. You don't know what secondary sources they've been reading. Just read Capital, one of the most misinterpreted and contentious texts in the history of philosophy.
Strawman.

In any case, by your retard logic, what qualifies your secondary sources as the correct reading and interpretation? Because they fit your particular terminal online flavor of ideology?

[Anonymous No.19655774]

>>19655750
It should be obvious. In my original post I recommended several mutually contradictory interpretations - "young Marx" theorists (sometime called Marxist humanists), Sidney Hook (a comprehensible version of an Althusserian, i.e. a believer in an epistemological break with Hegelianism, which is a rare view nowadays), and even voluntarist revisionists (syndicalists and fascists) and historians of the revisionist controversy within Marxism. The idea is to give people as broad and critical a perspective of their own as possible, so they can make their own decisions about Marx interpretation from there. Most people would stop at recommending whatever Marxist humanist, Leninist/Hegelian, OR (neo-)Althusserian "scientific" Marxist approach they happen to prefer, and wouldn't even clarify why they prefer that approach, or what the stakes are of saying opposed thinkers should be disregarded.

Your thinking is bourgeois. You naively advocate the "pure" text, because it's the best at "perspicuously" exhibiting the "facts" in their "objectivity" (Sachlichkeit). But Marx himself took 30 years to arrive at that text through painful immanent critique of French social thought, British political economy, and German philosophy, and he never repudiated any of them in their entirety. All had elements of the truth, but were internally in contradiction with themselves. That's the essence of dialectical thinking, which is the essence of Marx's mature work, which has been misunderstood as "scientific" political economy since its publication by people saying "just read Capital bro." You do damage to Marxism by being a snob in this way, and that's no slight criticism coming from me because this is a snobby and pedantic post. If you claim to be a historical materialist it's practically your duty to be aware of the dialectical history of the movement itself, as a way of leading others out of dead ends and clarifying your own consciousness.

[Anonymous No.19655777]

>>19655746
>my triple crown MBA
Is this supposed to impress me? According to wikipedia there are exactly two universities in the United States offering triple crown accredited MBAs and they're both shit no names. If you didn't go to an Ivy for your MBA, all you have proved is that you're a desperate drone who wasted 150k just to be an upper middle management HR clerk at a f500 company or at best, an exec at some tech startup founded by a mid 20s college dropout that's funded by his uncle. Your opinion means fuck all - especially wrt economics which an MBA barely even begins to approach properly, as evidenced by your required reading.

[Anonymous No.19655788]

>>19653856

[Anonymous No.19655799]

>>19655577
Bakunin
>the communism of Marx wants a mighty centralization by the state, and where this exists there must nowadays be a central State Bank and where such a bank exists, the parasitical Jewish nation, which speculates on the labor of the peoples, will always find a means to sustain itself.
>This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of bloodsucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other.

[Anonymous No.19655828]

>>19653856
Heinrich intro to Capital --> Capital
Principles of Political Economy - Uno Kozo
Long Waves of Capitalist Developtment - Mandel
Origins of Capitalism as a Social System - Milios

[Anonymous No.19655832]

>>19653856

[Anonymous No.19655848]

>>19655577
Measuring Utility - Moscati
How Economics Became a Mathematical Science - Weintraub
The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory - Myrdal

Schumpeter, Hayek, Böhm-Bawerk and von Mises if you don't mind ideologues.

[Anonymous No.19655880]

>>19655774
The brains on fascists - hilarious. I can't imagine how fucking scared you'd have to be of marxists - and of more people becoming marxists - to go out of your way to write paragraphs of mental gymnastics begging and pleading for people to not read the primary texts. Who the fuck cares if your recommendations are mutually contradictory interpretations? That's not going to give OP a broad and critical perspective, it's just going to confuse him since he won't be able to contemplate the ideas with respect to a base level of understanding formed from the primary literature. And you're so desperate to disparage and denigrate Engels, who Marx trusted more than anyone with his work, and his contribution just so the rest of the straws you're grasping at make sense.

Advocating for reading the primary material is bourgeois? Give me a fucking break cunt, go the fuck outside and touch grass for the first time this year. Not even gonna bother dignifying that shit. Marx's toil on his work is all the more reason to read it, and who the fuck cares if he didn't repudiate anything in it's entirety? He repudiated more than enough for the ideas to ground and convey.

[Anonymous No.19655882]

>>19653856
Never read someone else's take on an author before you read the author themselves. Seriously.

[Anonymous No.19655885]

>>19653856
here is a good start

[Anonymous No.19655924]

>>19655880
Jesus. And I was regretting not keeping my composure more. Thanks for making me feel better by comparison.

[Anonymous No.19655938]

>>19655924
>wahhh wahhh a marxist called me a cunt
What are you gonna do about it you fucking retard? Did your parents just give you your first internet privileges or something?

[Anonymous No.19655955]

>>19655577
>>19653856
Main currents of Marxism

[Anonymous No.19655962]

>>19655938
Faggot lol

[Anonymous No.19655968]

>>19655777
Christ anon, let the guy live. Nice trips tho

[Anonymous No.19655973]

>>19655962
you just broke your composure!!!! you lose lol!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.19655992]

>>19655832
This is a great companion to Tucker's full-length overview of Marx, which is also not overly long (250 pages or something). And vice versa. I agree with >>19655882 that you should just start reading the reader and see how far you get, but it's pretty difficult for someone uninitiated. I think excerpts from the critique of Hegel precede the 1844 manuscripts.

Overall Marx benefits more than most other authors from being read in a group and/or with reference to secondary materials. He really presupposes a familiarity with Hegel's "method" that wasn't easy to come by even in the 1870s, when Hegelism was long dead in Germany. He and Engels lament this in various places. But it's not impossible to get that grounding thanks mainly to the recovery of the "young Marx" starting in the 1920s and really picking up after WW2.

>>19655938
It's not that you called me a cunt, it's that you didn't respond to what I said. I know your brain is processing this interaction as an epic internet culture war battle, and you want to "debate" me by acting sassy, but I don't care about that. I would even have tolerated a lot more sass than this (although it would still be gay and unnecessary in my opinion), as long as you had said anything of substance.

[Anonymous No.19655996]

>>19655992
Forgot to mention David Harvey's introduction to reading Capital, which is a lecture series he does and is up on Youtube and available in book form. Never used it though. Some people like it, some people critique Harvey for having a middling understanding of Marx but he may still be a useful person to read along with since he goes right through Capital.

[Anonymous No.19656012]

>>19655992
>It's not that you called me a cunt, it's that you didn't respond to what I said. I know your brain is processing this interaction as an epic internet culture war battle, and you want to "debate" me by acting sassy, but I don't care about that. I would even have tolerated a lot more sass than this (although it would still be gay and unnecessary in my opinion), as long as you had said anything of substance.
lmfao I repudiated you more than enough, you're just out of gas and embarrassed because at this point it's plain to everyone with eyes and a brain that what you said is retarded.
Also, you fucking retard, this guy >>19655882 was calling YOU out. Jesus christ, you are thick. No self awareness at all.

[Anonymous No.19656044]

>>19656012
I'm not against just trying to read Marx, I just think it's unlikely people will make much progress without some guidance. My view has always been that you should read primary and secondary sources in tandem, and use the latter as a scaffold until you don't need it anymore or only occasionally need to consult it. That's why I suggested a bunch of them, even contradictory ones, since it's all grist for the mill in the end. Some of them will still be useful as reference materials beyond that point too, like the ones that detail Marx's relations to Ruge and Hess and so forth.

It seems like you felt threatened by my serious response, had no serious response of your own, and started freaking out performatively. Maybe I'm out of touch, but what you're doing just seems gay to me. For example I've said a bunch of things in my last two posts and still all you care about is our "fight." I told you above, if you're a real Marxist you have a duty to engage constructively in dialectical "work." Instead of engaging in it you're flailing like a faggot so you can upset some guy you're never going to meet.

It's a lot like the commodity: once you realize your asspain is an alienated form of your bruised ego, and that you're really just trying to save face, the asspain will reveal itself as illusory and dissolve. I could tell you which author Marx got this theory from, which months of which year he read him in, and direct you to their letters, but I got all that information from secondary sources so I'm afraid it's forbidden.

[Anonymous No.19656078]

>>19655777

>Is this supposed to impress me

No, retard, it means the book has a broad depth and appeal. Sorry my education triggered your debilitating insecurities. I am a director for a company you've heard of so no reason to keep guessing.

[Anonymous No.19656079]

>>19656044
>I'm not against just trying to read Marx, I just think it's unlikely people will make much progress without some guidance. My view has always been that you should read primary and secondary sources in tandem, and use the latter as a scaffold until you don't need it anymore or only occasionally need to consult it.
This is a complete 180 from the beginning where you were exclusively recommending secondary sources and spewing shit like
>NOOO READING THE PRIMARY TEXTS IS BOURGEOIS!
And it's precisely because I called out the insipid retardation behind that.
>It seems like you felt threatened by my serious response, had no serious response of your own, and started freaking out performatively.
I did have a serious response: >>19654175. This is a very easy reading list, and as you can see, I even didn't recommend Capital because it isn't required as an introduction to marxism as OP has asked for.
>Maybe I'm out of touch, but what you're doing just seems gay to me.
Yes, you are out of touch and possibly schizophrenic.
>For example I've said a bunch of things in my last two posts and still all you care about is our "fight." I told you above, if you're a real Marxist you have a duty to engage constructively in dialectical "work." Instead of engaging in it you're flailing like a faggot so you can upset some guy you're never going to meet.
You can keep pretending like I haven't been saying anything if it makes it easier for you. I've been actively asking for you to expand on your opinions and explaining you why your recommendation of secondary sources over primary sources is wrong. Just because I don't waste my time with stupid shit like my "thinking is bourgeois" just because I advocate for primary material and strewn in some swear, doesn't mean that the rest of what I've said is not "engaging constructively in dialectical "work.""
>It's a lot like the commodity: once you realize your asspain is an alienated form of your bruised ego, and that you're really just trying to save face, the asspain will reveal itself as illusory and dissolve. I could tell you which author Marx got this theory from, which months of which year he read him in, and direct you to their letters, but I got all that information from secondary sources so I'm afraid it's forbidden.
Unnecessarily inserted fart huffing pseud shit that has 0 bearing on what's actually being discussed.

[Anonymous No.19656087]

>>19656078
>business economics
>broad depth and appeal
kek
>I am a director for a company you've heard of
Again, is this supposed to impress me? Do you know how many companies I've heard of and how many of them are just as shit as your education?

[Anonymous No.19656108]

>>19656087

>Again, is this supposed to impress me

You kept guessing my role (incorrectly) in a pathetic attempt to try to dismiss my education as worthless. You failed. Did you fail at school as well anon? Is that why you are so upset?

Share with the group.

P. S. it's a great book for understanding modern day economics on a global scale.

[Anonymous No.19656109]

>>19656079
I never said "don't read Marx at all." I just recommended some secondary sources. You said to "just" read the primary material. I replied saying that "just" (exclusively) reading primary sources is dangerous and not ideal, and has historically led to a lot of misinterpretations, including by Engels, and recent heterodox schools of Marxism.

This thread isn't about us, and this "no you said," "no YOU said" shit is gay. I'm getting serious Cluster B vibes here. I'm going to stop replying. Feel free to call me a crazy retard and all that, but once your BPD episode ends, please consider whether you may have BPD.

[Anonymous No.19656114]

>>19656109
Also for the record I admitted being pedantic and petty in my first response. I probably could have avoided this mess if I had been more constructive instead of combative.

[Anonymous No.19656161]

just don't. You'll get nothing worthwhile out of it

[Anonymous No.19656393]

>>19655577
Karl Marx and the Close of His System by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig Von Mises
The Easy Peasy Way to Quit Porn

[Anonymous No.19656449]

>>19653856
Road to Serfdom.

It shows that he is a fucking retard so dont waste your time. Capital is shit anyway so is the manifesto. He was a rich boy who had his wife working for him, deadbeat loser.

[Anonymous No.19656460]

>>19655577
The transgender industrial complex

[Anonymous No.19656553]

>>19656109
>>19656114
Ok, I see now. But as you admit, it is extremely unclear in your initial posts. In any case, "just" reading the primary material when introducing yourself to marxism is still correct. it is important that readers come to their own first conclusions no matter how rudimentary through adequate engagement and critical analysis with the ideas. If they read secondary sources first or even in tandem with primary, they will automatically defer to the "authority" of the secondary lit and discard any attempts at their own analysis.
>everything is gay and no u mental illness
Yes, this is the internet. That's a given.

[Anonymous No.19656557]

Also OP, don't fall for the Engels was wrong meme. While of the two Marx is the leading mind, Engels should be held in almost equal footing.

[Anonymous No.19656651]

>>19656108
I'm a grad student at a t10 where upon my completion I will be primed to pursue a life with meaning. Your education IS worthless and your "success" amounts to being a good lapdog for middle tier corporate america. Bravo. Thanks for the book rec.

[Anonymous No.19656656]

Visiting from /pol/. You guys dont actually like communism, right?

[Anonymous No.19656670]

>>19656557
>While of the two Marx is the leading mind
Filtered midwit

[Anonymous No.19656674]

>>19656670
not an argument

[Anonymous No.19656688]

>>19656557
The works of Engel I've read where he tries to synthesize other literature makes it seem like he just read the blurb and never undertook any serious investigation of the sources he cited

[Anonymous No.19656690]

>>19656688
Be specific

[Anonymous No.19656711]

>>19655671
He said anti-Marx not proto-Marx

[Anonymous No.19656723]

>>19656711
based

[Anonymous No.19657234]

>>19655577
Bastiat's The Law
Nietzsche's Critique of Socialism by N Buccola
The Dream of Socialism - De Casseres
"Socialist Turnips": The Young Friedrich Engels and the Feasibility of Communism
Marx’s Capital and One Free World A Fundamental Reappraisal of his Political Economy by Tadao Horie
The Sovereign Individual

[Anonymous No.19657622]

>>19656449
not an argument

[Anonymous No.19657654]

>>19656656
dear /pol/,
is china fash?

[Anonymous No.19658038]

>>19656651

I am not American and neither is my school you flailing clown.

[Anonymous No.19658484]

>>19656656
This is an anarchist board. Except on Thursdays and Sundays when it’s a theocratic dictatorial board.

[Anonymous No.19658574]

>>19653856
>Recommend me a good introduction to Marx
"Capital as Power"

[Anonymous No.19659369]

>>19658574
>swapping one retarded "heteredox" school with hundreds of followers to another retarded "heterodox" school with like five followers
nice taste. the only better option is to write your own book

[Anonymous No.19659965]

>>19659369
>swapping the centuries-old crap that never worked to a very fresh school that actually does deliver

[Anonymous No.19660137]

>>19658038
So? You're still a lapdog for corporate america, and if your firm is somehow that far removed from the globohomo sphere (unlikely since I've supposedly heard of them), then just replace corporate america with corporate anglosphere. btw I'm not american either. Everything I said still applies.

[Anonymous No.19660209]

>>19660137

>You're still a lapdog for corporate america

I don't work for an American company you blithering idiot. I work in health care and do not do business in or with the USA. You just backpedaled into a sewage lagoon. Quit while you are behind.

>HURR DURR EVERY COMPANY IS GLOBOHOMO ffs retard

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19660223]

>Recommend me a good introduction to Marx
stfu

[Anonymous No.19660292]

>>19660209
>and if your firm is somehow that far removed from the globohomo sphere (unlikely since I've supposedly heard of them), then just replace corporate america with corporate anglosphere.
Nice reading skills - really the hallmark of a triple crown (very good and definitely not meaningless accreditation) education. I'm surprised to hear that I've somehow heard of this health care company which is not part of the globohomo sphere though. Sounds very middling at best. Some people are just destined for a middling and unremarkable life, and that's ok!

[Anonymous No.19660310]

>>19656393
>The Easy Peasy Way to Quit Porn
What? How is this "anti-Marxist literature?"

Also neither Communism or Marxism is a "system." (the Soviet Union was a capitalist country that doesn't represent his thought at all.) Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk was full of shit.

[Anonymous No.19660366]

>>19660310
>the Soviet Union was a capitalist country that doesn't represent his thought at all
Based marxism understander. I'm in awe of all the marx you've read lad.