[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

| Catalog | Home
|

 No.5969[Reply]

So I know what capital is but what gives capital it’s characteristics? And if capitalism is capital reproducing itself in ever expanding processes, then what is it? Does this mean that capital only producing commodities which is what the end product of capital is? No this can’t be because that would be engaging in commodity fetishism. If generalized commodity production is then a phenomena of capitalism then in appearance capitalism looks like a world of exchange values and use values in which is the limits of bourgeois economy because on the surface commodities seem to rule life. But if commodities are nothing but a phenomena and nothing but something taking place in the surface then what is actually capital doing?

If the subjective essence of capital is labor then the product or the commodity appears as the central issue and generalized commodity production the fundamental issue of capitalism. But what then is the objective essence of capital and capitalism?

Capital could only be capitalism if it reproduces itself and so the true essence of capitalism is a social relation. And even more fundamental is the conditions for such a social relation to exist. Predicate to the existence of capital is the deprivation of the means of production from the immediate producer whether that be the land, tools, machinery etc. but that’s not the only deprivation, capital itself must be deprived of labor itself: people. And so the fundamental conflict appears to be dead labor vs living labor and those two being deprived of the other. Capital (dead labor) is useless without the labor process (living labor) but in order for capital to be capital it must continue to keep itself separate from living labor and living labor separate from it, with commodity production being the mediator between the two. And so the true essence of capitalism is capital reproducing a social relation continuously in increasing size. So if capitalism’s objective is to reproduce this social relation why do so many people take commodity production as the true essence of capitalism. Or “changing hands” into that of the state? If the point of communism is to abolish this relation of production to a production in common then it follows that capital will seize to exist in contradiction between dead and living labor. We have seen historically that it doesn’t matter which hands capital is put in, it still exists as capital and reproduces capital relations, so what is it with the misunderPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.5970

>But what then is the objective essence of capital and capitalism?
Fossilized labour sonstalinStalin

 No.5971

>>5970
Stalin is my favorite corporate CEO.

 No.6161

>>5969
That seems to effectively be saying capitalism will cease to exist when commodity production ceases to exist. The split between dead and living labor is in the commodification of labor’s product. You end that commodification, ie you end private appropriation of the product, then you’ve ended commodity production. You end exchange of commodities, dead labor can’t be hanging over us in the way it does now. But it’s only a part of the story, you haven’t necessarily ended surplus value extraction unless you end class. Value didn’t dictate the economy before capitalism, though it existed in limited commodity markets. But surplus extraction still existed, and it wasn’t based on the commodity markets. So class society is separate from commodity production, ending commodity production isn’t ending exploitation. But conversely, ending class exploitation isn’t ending commodity production, as exploitation is ended in the worker co-op form, but commodity production is maintained. So value still regulates human social reproduction.

These two things are in relation to each other. Commodity production is the means by which class exploitation occurs. Commodity production is downstream of exploitation, it is produced out of a historical searching for opportunity to exploit a surplus, and it was produced out of the given historical circumstances of that searching. Ending class exploitation opens the door to ending commodity production, though likely not all at once. Commodity production is a tool to exploit a surplus, so if you end the class doing the exploiting, the tool is only as valuable as it is useful to the continued existence of the classless society. Hence, worker cooperatives are a transitionary social form. Commodity production may still produce private incomes for classless producers, and therefore there will be divisions, but as long as the classless producers have relatively equal political access, then the private incomes of the few are subordinate to the interests of the many, which by nature of markets are always going to outnumber the wealthier few. However, the issue with capitalist social relations in this respect is that the rich few are a social class that has dispersed dictatorships within the economy. Political participation is limited to the state, which is actually an oligarchy of the private dictatorships, empowered by surplus extraction to reaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



 No.5935[Reply]

Is there a book I can read on the economy of the Roman Empire and the social classes of the time? Anything that goes into deep analysis or extensive stuff.
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6807

Any 18th or 19th century Marxists whose given an analysis of Rome and/or it's collapse?

 No.6822

<Proletarians, then, have not always existed?
>No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

 No.6824

Also interested in a Marxist history on this topic from someone who isn't a pseud (Parenti).

 No.6825

Rosa Luxemburg wrotes a bit about this, but I dunno if it was translated in english.iwwIWW

 No.6826

This work is a marxist classic mostly on Ancient Greece but it also talks about Rome.



File: 1622535183649.jpg (281.53 KB, 1024x686, sh.jpg)

 No.5927[Reply]

The other day in the China thread, I read an argument about supporting China over Vietnam despite the latter's arguably more "socialist" economy. The reason for support of China over Vietnam would be the fact that the former is most poised in breaking with the established American world order, while the latter is more inclined to appease American interests due to strained relations with the PRC.

All that's well and good, but these (nonetheless relevant) geopolitical considerations made me wonder how to study historical and current AES countries' political economies, their evolution, and how they stack up to, for example, western social democracies such as the Nordic countries in their heyday. Again, usually I'd be foaming at the mouth too seeing a comparison of Scandinavia with the late USSR, but from a purely economic standpoint it'd be nice to clear up some of the confusion.

This becomes especially interesting, once again, when bringing up modern-day China. Is it socialist? Is it just social democracy at the barrel of a gun? I feel like it's difficult nowadays to get a purely economic view of that question without involving, again, the matter of nigh obligation to critically support China due to their geopolitical position. Let's change that and drop some PDFs.
10 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6005

Ladies, ladies, ladies, not in the edu thread. We share pdfs and epubs around these parts.

>>5997
>>5999
That being said, if you're gonna bitch about the commodity form – you might even be right – stop talking out of your ass like that and start making sense.

 No.6006

>>6004
>But in large part commodity markets were secondary
But in the Soviet Uniom they weren't? Commodity markets were limited only to consumer goods, but they were still dominant in the Soviet Union? Got it
>But hey you haven't said anything of value, just the same nonsensical bullshit which is hilarious
Neither have you buddy. A mode of Production is being determined by surplus extraction as Marx recalled later during Volume 3. Being critical of past socialist experiments is easy, but actually overcoming the hurdles is a different thing

 No.6007

>>6005
>We share pdfs and epubs around these parts
Guy is a newfag who wants to convince every board of his supposed superior intelligence

 No.6008

>>6007
Samefag

 No.6009

>>6005
Commodity fetishism.



File: 1622312309351.jpg (7.33 KB, 191x263, gentile.jpg)

 No.5849[Reply]

anyone here ever read gentile ? whats his writings like, is there any merit to what he has to say as well as any relevant criticism of capitalism or socialist movements ?

 No.5856

It's pretty underwhelming imo. If you want to understand the Ideology and movement, that was 20th century fascism then you have to read him atleast once, but there are more fascinating writers under that tent tbh



File: 1621932533736.png (14.23 KB, 825x202, sands.png)

 No.5824[Reply]

I'm looking for editions of this journal (current, past). I've checked libgen, sci-hub, MAM, and IRC to no avail. I'm looking for the current edition in particular (https://www.scienceandsociety.com/current.pdf) but anything helps, really.

 No.5825

Is this an academic journal?

 No.5836

>>5825
>Is this an academic journal?
as opposed to…?

>Appearing quarterly since 1936, Science & Society is the longest continuously published journal of Marxist scholarship, in any language, in the world.


>Science & Society is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal of Marxist scholarship. It publishes original studies in political economy and the economic analysis of contemporary societies; social and political theory; philosophy and methodology of the natural and social sciences; history, labor, ethnic and women's studies; aesthetics, literature and the arts. We especially welcome theoretical and applied research that both breaks new ground in a specific discipline, and is intelligible and useful to non-specialists.


>Science & Society does not adhere to any particular school of contemporary Marxist discussion, and does not attempt to define precise boundaries for Marxism. It does encourage respectful attention to the entire Marxist tradition, as well as to cutting-edge tools and concepts from the present-day social science literatures.


https://www.scienceandsociety.com/

What is with zoomers today who can't even click on a link or do a web search? Does literally everything have to be spoon-fed to you in the form of a 2 minute youtube video?

 No.5953

>>5824
They followed me back on twitter which is surprising.

 No.6011

bump, because I want it too.



 No.5817[Reply]

So, what I hear from from liberals, reactonaries but also some communists, is that a lot of Marx's concepts and categories are not empirically proven and just based on prior assumptions Marx makes(ie Dialectics) or based on his own morality. One of these categories disputed by liberal "intellectuals" is surplus value or profit in their view. They argue, that it only exists as an entity if you accept Marx's epistemology. Is it true?
This shouldn't be only about surplus value but about whatever seems to fullfill the premise of being an unsupported claim in Marx's works. Communists like Althusser insist that there are remnants of Hegelian Idealism in Marx that make some of his claims unscientific. Is there truth to that too?
>posting in /edu/ since I hope to get some good answers in this thread

 No.5819

How is surplus value a Marxian category? It’s a name Marx made for something that is part of liberal categories. Marx only looked to understand the relation in those categories.

 No.5823

>>5819
I said that a lot is based on prior assumptions. See:
>and categories are not empirically proven and just based on prior assumptions Marx makes(ie Dialectics)
This includes the political economy of Smith and Ricardo too. Now that bourgeois economics has moved away from the classicals, the question arises by liberals, if Marx's work can only work nowadays if you accept the categories of classical political economy. We can see that it is not true for the ltv since people like cockshott proved it empirically. Surplus value though…seems not to have been proven

 No.5829

This is true for every theory. Atom is just a theory backed by copious data and evidence. You’re free to come up with an alternative hypothesis.
Just know that Neoclassical economics doesn’t have any more predictive power and the Post Keynesian prove this

 No.5834

>>5823
Surplus is given value only by competition but surplus in general just means above what is necessary to maintain a group. If 5 people produce every day enough to produce all 5 of them every single day then they do not produce surplus. Now if 5 people produce double what they produced before then now they are producing a surplus. This would double what they needed to subsist. That's all surplus is. Surplus value is a category denoting s phenomena in modern political economy. The surplus value is only given value in comparison to other values in exchange, that is, commodity production. Surplus value has only been possible ever since the realization of generalized commodity production, to be distinct from former commodity production when someone would only barter or trade their surpluses. Generalized commodity production is what gives value it's value, alongside competition of course.



File: 1621869990082.jpg (14.53 KB, 201x302, Juan_Posadas.jpg)

 No.5808[Reply]

/posadism/ general

Any posadist literature in english? I wanna see if there is any method to his madness or is it just shizo rambling.christian_communismChristian Communism
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5813

>>5812 (me)
there is also a revleft episode with the author.

https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/posadism

 No.5815

>>5812
Is there an epub of this?

 No.5816

General /ayyyylmao/ thread? Anyone have any suggestions for books on the trans-dimensional theories? I've read Valleé and liked it but this was years ago and he never really articulated a theory.

 No.5818

posadasPosadas

 No.5820

posadasPosadas



 No.5798[Reply]

I want to talk about private property, it’s original inspiration to according to modern private property, and it’s development as private property in bourgeois society.
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5800

>>5799
I didn’t say I want reading materia, I want to discuss.

 No.5801

>>5800
But you didn't ask a question or anything. The clip is related to where private property comes from historically. Somebody could write what Mark Blyth said as a post but it would be the same thing. What's there to discuss exactly? The mercantile classes rose up against the nobility and took the state, then created private property as the means to make the commoners work for them as proles instead of peasants. That's the quick rundown version.

 No.5802

>>5801
Wasn’t private property a kind of marriage of the old Roman private property law and the landed property laws of the feudal times?

 No.5804

What do we call the property of the peasants, small landowners who were expropriated with the rise of capital?

 No.5806

>>5804
We have to look at a feudal legal code to know that tbh.



File: 1621721078996.png (186.13 KB, 640x640, 1621721073444.png)

 No.5779[Reply]

Should I read theory in english or my native language? Until now I've only read in german but I never debate or discuss in german so I don't know which is better. Also, which language do you read theory?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5784

>>5783
The Chinese translation of Capital is easier to read than the English one.

 No.5797

>>5784
Brb gonna go learn Mandarin real quick to read Capital

 No.5814

>>5779
It is always preferable to read texts in their original language.
also lies Marx verfickt nochmal auf deutsch.

 No.6047

Read it in German. English speakers can't think by essence because they don't know the etymologies of their words.

 No.6058

If you know the original language well, read it in the original language. (And certainly no shortage of good theory in German!) If not, well, the translator probably knows the language better than you. I learned this the hard way, trying to ploddingly get my way through Baudrillard and Badiou in French (which I can read, but slowly and not very well) rather than just going for the translation.



 No.5750[Reply]

American WWII training videos are so cool. I don't know what else I should add here. I'm going to post a couple on various topics. Some might be more useful than others.

 No.5752




Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home