/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2304177
How can one be a "bourgeois thinker" and a "liberal" but at the same time anti-capitalist? Why would a "bourgeois thinker" oppose the system created by and operated for the benefit of the bourgeosie as a class? When in history has the ruling class destroyed deliberately their own system for being unfair?

>>2305256
>if A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
the relation between A B and C is not the same as the relation between A B C and the absolute, that is the between the parts and other parts and the parts and the whole.
>not in the least. marx describes primitive accumulation here
and also in the chapter you first linked, which describes exactly what I said
why did you even ask?
and tell us what it means to you

>What does the primitive accumulation of capital … resolve itself into?

>Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals. But according as these private individuals are labourers or not labourers, private property has a different character. The private property of the labourer in his means of production is the foundation of petty industry … is an essential condition for the development of social production and of the free individuality of the labourer himself. Of course, this petty mode of production exists also under slavery, serfdom … This mode of production presupposes parcelling of the soil and scattering of the other means of production.
first he tells us that the character of private property depends on whether it is owned by individual producers or people who do not work

>'As it excludes the concentration of these means of production, so also it excludes cooperation, division of labour within each separate process of production, the control over, and the productive application of the forces of Nature by society, and the free development of the social productive powers. It is compatible only with a system of production, and a society, moving within narrow and more or less primitive bounds. At a certain stage of development, it brings forth the material agencies for its own dissolution.
now he describes how the property of individual producers brings about its own destruction because it lacks socialization

>Its annihilation, the transformation of the individualised and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, the expropriation of the great mass of the people from the soil … Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property

>this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime.
and that destruction is what marx calls primitive accumulation of capital which socializes the means of production while privitizing the profits

>capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.
then he tells us that this creates an opportunity for communism.

>The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people
and closes out saying it was really violent, but it will be easier for us because there are more workers than borg

>>2305269
>i prefer to let you live in fantasy.
you prefer not holding clear positions so you can change them whenever you get proven wrong

>if i make the simple arithmetic sum: 1+1=2
u a platonist too?

>>2305305
Its strange that you claim to be Christian and do not(or pretend not) to understand when Hegels says the Christian trinity is an mystical occluded representation of his dialectical method. Hegel was also (supposedly) a protestant after all. God the Father (Universal) particularizes in Christ (Particular) and becomes concrete through the Spirit (Individual) in the believer. Hegel stresses the physicality of Christ's incarnation against abstract spirituality, the "Word made flesh". The crucifixion especially shows God's immersion in material finitude. He resolves the apparent contradiction in the Trinity (three persons but one substance) through dialectics, difference preserved within unity. This is the same as the contradiction that I≠U. For Hegel, the Holy Spirit's work in the community completes God's self-realization. God actualized in the community of believers, the Universal returning to itself through the Particular. The Spirit is the living presence of God in the individual consciousness and the collective Church. The Father is not "God" in full actuality apart from the Son and Spirit. The Son (Christ) is the "truth" of the Father made manifest, without the Incarnation, God remains an empty abstraction. The Spirit is God’s return to self through human finitude, completing the syllogism. Christ’s death (particularity negated) is the pivotal moment, the death of God-in-finite-form sublates (aufheben) the separation between divine and human. Finitude ("I") is not annihilated but preserved and elevated into the life of the Spirit ("U"). The "gap" between God (U) and humanity (I) is mediated through Christ’s sacrifice (P). The gap between humanity and God is overcome within material history, not postponed to an afterlife. For Hegel the Trinity’s culmination in the Spirit requires the material community, this is not "idealism" in the subjective sense, it is God constituting himself through the finite, material world.
Its entirely possible if Hegel was more explicit, if he did not write the way he did, he could have been persecuted for athiesm, even fired from his post, the same way Spinoza was excommunicated. And of course Marx does exactly that, Hegelianizing Hegel, he also does not simply overcome him, but merely repeats at a higher level. The Church as a political institution is obvious in Catholicism, but hidden for Protestants, with the invention of the printing press and numerous "interpretations", yet Luther and Calvin were as dogmatic as Rome when challenged. For Orthodox Lutherans (and Catholics), Hegel’s claim that "God is God only insofar as He knows Himself" (through human consciousness/history) collapses transcendence into immanence. This erases the personal, sovereign God of Scripture, the core of "atheism" accusations against philosophers since Socrates. Luther even called reason "the Devil’s whore" when it challenged sola fide, and called for the execution of blasphemers and heretics. What binds these different interpretations together is belief by blind faith, as it is with yourself, rather than reason, as it is with dialectics.

>>2305305
>so to you, the "absolute" is the form of the syllogism itself?
That is what Hegel says.
>do these results owe their construction to a participation in the sum itself? no. here's why.
No, its because 1 and 2 are abstract symbols that dont have a concrete reality prior to or independent from humans using them to do math.
>mediated by what are called "functions" (+, ×, ÷, etc.)
Those are operators not functions.
>this is the hegelian "middle term" which relates variables to each other.
No its not, the "middle term" is the particular which is a concrete determination of a material thing that relates the individual to the universal.
>hegel's false construction is giving (pre)condition to the variables [I-P-U]
Its not a false construction, the terms of I-P-U are not predetermined because they do not exist outside their concrete determinations. Hegels syllogism isn't an abstract form but a description of material reality.
The Individual only becomes concretely individual through its particularization of the Universal. The Universal only becomes concrete through its instantiation in the Particular and Individual. The terms co-constitute each other within the syllogism. Hegel isn't saying the form magically creates pre-existing terms. He's saying Reality (the Absolute Idea) exists only as this process of self-mediation. The syllogism is the dynamic movement from one to the other and back again.
>the issue with this, is that it creates a contradiction
No, thats literally the entire point. The contradiction is essential. Things do not have static identities where I=U, things are determined by the process of overcoming the distinction between I and U as mediated through P. The contradiction I ≠ U is not a flaw but the engine that drives the dialectic forward. P is the necessary bridge because I and U are distinct within their unity. The distinction (I ≠ U) isn't erased, it's preserved within a higher unity achieved through the mediating activity (P).
The "Absolute as Syllogism" is this active process of mediation, not a state where I and U collapse into featureless sameness. The apparent separation is the moment of difference that demands mediation (P). This mediation isn't just a connection, it's the process by which I and U define each other.
The form (I-P-U) isn't the Absolute in isolation. The Absolute is the entire, self-enclosed system of syllogisms (Subjective, Objective, Idea) where every moment mediates every other. It is the self-mediating activity of the concept actualizing itself through its own determinations.
Exactly as has been repeated probably a hundred times you are making a category error conflating formal logic for dialectical logic. Abstract "forms" as in formal logic, are not real. They can be useful, as in math, but they do not represent reality as it actually is, merely an approximation.
You implicitly treat numbers (1, 2) and the operation (+) as pre-existing, self-subsistent entities participating in a relationship. This is idealism. Numbers are only real insofar as they stand in for real objects. There is no 1 existing prior to its participation in relations like + or =. Its identity is constituted through its mediation within the system of arithmetic/logic.
Hegels dialectic is not a formal logic that can be separated from its metaphysical/ontological claims. The "Absolute as syllogism" is the claim that reality is the self-mediating activity of the Concept (Geist/Idea). The form is the content. Hegel isn't mistakenly conflating form and content, he deliberately identifies them as the Absolute. His entire system aims to overcome the very dualism your critique relies upon (subject/object, form/content, universal/particular).
Hegels point is that the very notion of a "pre-given term" independent of relations is a contentless empty abstraction. True concreteness and reality lie only in the self-mediating whole (the Absolute as syllogistic system). The "sophistry" you identify is the radical core of his project, it is the rejection of independent substances in favor of relational processes as ontologically primary.
The Concept is not a disembodied, pre-existing Platonic form hovering above reality. It is the immanent, dynamic logic of reality itself, a logic that necessarily involves its own self-externalization and self-particularization in materiality.
The Universal (Concept/Idea) is not abstract, it achieves its concreteness, its actuality, only by embodying itself in the Particular and the Individual. Conversely, the Individual only has genuine, determinate reality as a particularization of the Universal. They are mutually constitutive moments. Hegel relentlessly criticizes abstract Universals and bare, isolated Individuals/Particulars. Truth and reality lie only in their mediated unity within the dialectical process. Nature is defined as the "Idea in its otherness". It is the realm of externality, space, time, matter, and mechanical/chemical/organic processes.
Nature is a necessary moment in the Idea's self-actualization. The Idea must externalize itself to become concrete. Spirit (including human consciousness and society) emerges from Nature as the "truth" of Nature, the Idea returning to itself.
Within this framework, Material Reality (Nature) is a derivative moment, a stage of self-alienation that the Idea (Geist/Spirit) must pass through and overcome (sublate, aufheben) to achieve its full concrete actuality. The ground and truth of the process is the self-realizing Idea/Spirit. Materiality is essential for this realization.
The "Absolute" is the entire process, including its material moment. You cannot meaningfully separate the "Idea" from its material actualization.
Hegel's analysis of Objective Spirit (law, morality, family, civil society, the state) and even parts of the Phenomenology (Lordship/Bondage, the "Spiritual Animal Kingdom," "Absolute Freedom and Terror") demonstrate that the Concept develops through concrete, materially embedded social and historical practices.
The mutual constitution of U-P-I happens in the real, material world. The "Universal" ("law," "value," "freedom") only gains concrete meaning through its particular instantiations in material institutions and individual actions.
Material reality isn't just a transient "otherness" for Spirit, it is the necessary, constitutive ground within which the dialectic unfolds. The Logic describes the form of this process, but its content and actuality are irreducibly material. The Idea depends on materiality for its concreteness. Hegel's systematic presentation (starting with Logic) is a methodological abstraction, not the ontological primacy of "pure thought."
Ignoring the irreducible necessity of the material moment (Nature, embodiment, labor, social practice) fundamentally misreads Hegel. You vulgarize his method into subjective idealism where he collapses into empty abstraction without this moment of externalization and concrete particularization.
The syllogism (I-P-U) isn't a static form imposed on reality. It is the dynamic process where the Universal (U) becomes actual only by determining itself as Particular (P) and realizing itself in Individuals (I), and where Individuals (I) achieve their true essence only by participating in and actualizing the Universal (U) through their Particular (P) existence, a process occurring in and through material reality. The "middle term" (P) is precisely the realm of concrete determination, including materiality.
The critique of the syllogism form creating an unresolved I ≠ U contradiction misses how the process of mediation (P) is the dynamic overcoming of this distinction within the concrete totality. Again, the "contradiction" is the engine, not a flaw. Any reading that detaches Hegel's dialectic from the concrete material world profoundly misrepresents him.
Youre critique in fact actually mirrors Hegel's own critique of contentless abstraction in syllogism that preceded him as an empty formalism with no relation to reality. Hegel views this form of critique as understanding (Verstand) the rigid, analytical mindset that sees only contradictions without grasping their resolution.
It is similar to Marx and Lenin's critique of vulgar mechanical materialism, or of naive empiricism or positivism in general. Hegel views understanding as a necessary stop on the path to true reason and scientific knowledge, but it falls short without grounding.
As usualy attempts to overcome Hegel in the end simply repeat him. All you have done is echo and highlight his own critique of Kant. Using fixed categories (like the syllogism form) as external frameworks imposed on a passive content, resulting in an unresolved duality (thing-in-itself vs. phenomenon).
He called this "the formalism of an empty schema of dead understanding". Exactly what Engels and Lenin verbalized as "static" "fixed" "unchanging" approach that is opposed to dialectics and therefore incapable of grasping true knowledge.
This priveldging of abstact identity over concrete unity in difference is yet another example of unfounded idealism. To truly understand dialectics is to know that neither moment in the passage from Individual to Universal is priveledged over the other, that knowledge always consists of relating both sides to eachother and to the whole.
The very positing of this contradiction is not the end of dialectics, but its beginning, it is the limit of crude empiricism that is the starting point to launch into a dialectical investigation to uncover the essence behind appearence, it is itself the Hegelian movement that opens up to its own overcoming. Thought encountering its own limit (the contradiction exposed by Verstand), recognizing that limit as inherent to its current form, and thereby transcending that form through a more concrete, dynamic, and materially grounded comprehension is exactly dialectics.

>>2299097
>an economy without money is barter
>>2301330
>Would inter-tribal territorial claims and disputes within a broad culture of people who speak the same language and intermingle through marriage count as property relations?
indigenous economics like the gift economy are interesting and possibly a model which we can use to develop non-alienating business activities.

Gift giving ethics really demonstrates how alienation leads to atomization How can you have solidarity with someone if you only care about buying consumer products in the marketplace from them, and can simply drop your relationship to them on a whim? Like neoliberals who "rationally" are dropping their LGBT pride flags because the 52%/48% democrat majority shifted to a 52% republiacn majority. Kamala Harris is not a friend to anyone, she would abandon transgender people the second the laws change, she isn't a friend to workers, she would even abandon her hot sister Maya if it was "prudent"!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
>Malinowski's debate with the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss quickly established the complexity of "gift exchange" and introduced a series of technical terms such as reciprocity, inalienable possessions, and presentation to distinguish between the different forms of exchange.
>According to anthropologists Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry, it is the unsettled relationship between market and non-market exchange that attracts the most attention. Some authors argue that gift economies build community, while markets harm community relationships.
>Gift exchange is distinguished from other forms of exchange by a number of principles, such as the form of property rights governing the articles exchanged; whether gifting forms a distinct "sphere of exchange" that can be characterized as an "economic system"; and the character of the social relationship that the gift exchange establishes. Gift ideology in highly commercialized societies differs from the "prestations" typical of non-market societies. Gift economies also differ from related phenomena, such as common property regimes and the exchange of non-commodified labour.

Communist economy is like the simplest shit ever.

The basic needs are produced via highly efficient, automated, giant factories. Shit like food, water, electricity, shelter etc.

Even in third world countries like Vietnam, all that shit is like 20 hours of labor per week per worker. In first world countries, its like 5 hours of labor.

So all the basic stuff is guanranteed. Then for additional stuff, people just take whatever is produced. And people produce for the joy and enjoyment of producing, becuase work is their life's prime want.

It's all so simple. I don't know why people find this complicated. All this retarded talk about AGI and economic calculation and shit. Wtf.

Communist society is 1000000% simpler than even feudalism or ancient India or whatever.

>>2309224

Capital, by Karl Marx

>>2309298
economics is a fallacious school of thought created by 19th century industrial ruling/merchant class in order to post-facto justify their own political actions as being "just"

>>2309333
>Denying a ENTIRE field of economics just because it doesn't agree with your ideal political ideas
that's exactly what the rich did with classical political economy

NTA

>>2309298
>Almost zero modern academic economist take Das Kapital seriously
Also
>>2309375
>if you ask a serious academic economist they will outright say that they take things from Marx, Mises and other fringe economist
>Marx
So y r u mad?

>>2309298
modern "economics" be like
>I :transheart: landlords

>>2308648
What a shitty boring response. Its like you didn't even read the post you are responding to. Typical behavior dont know why I expected more.
>are you the same person who couldnt tell me the difference between "formal logic" and "dialectical" logic?
We went over this repeatedly last thread. You can read it again or google it if you are still confused.
>>Luther even called reason "the Devil’s whore" when it challenged sola fide
>he was right, but man must live in sin.
>>What binds these different interpretations together is belief by blind faith, as it is with yourself, rather than reason, as it is with dialectics.
>how do i argue from blind faith rather than reason?
This is meant as a joke right? Like the whole post? Where you repeatedly take statements in isolation when the relations that define them and answers to you rebuttals are right in front of you?

Why should I answer any question from you when you never answer anything of consequence from me. Get a blog if you want to talk to yourself.

>>2309529
You just know a MIGA voter made this one

>>2309632
>so there is in fact, no exclusion between formal logic and dialectical logic after all?
They are different types of logic and have different uses and scope. Its really not difficult to understand. "not meant to replace" means that dialectical logic is not meant to be used instead of formal logic but in addition to it, not that they are the same or one is a replacement for the other. There are times when formal logic is appropriate and there are others where dialectical logic is.
>as i say, list what i failed to respond to
We have already played this game too. Just control+f for "?" and see all the ones you missed. I have even repeated them all in a line for you multiple times and you still pick and choose what to respond to based on how convenient it is for your argument, which is inconsistent anyway because you dont actually have a position and hop from one contrarian view to the other as it pleases you.
>>2305280
>why did you even ask?
>and tell us what it means to you
here is the most recent

sorry that your memory buffer only holds seven words at a time. cant even remember your own posts we have on record let alone the ones that are now deleted

>>2309214
tiny north korea manages to provide a modest but decent standard of living for its citizens despite being sanctioned to all shit. now imagine what would be possible with the resources of the entire world

this means that all the atrocities that happen under capitalism are literally for nothing, all of it is just a waste, senseless destruction of life and resources for literally no reason. that's the monstrous nature of it

>>2309544
>repeatedly take statements in isolation when the relations that define them and answers to you rebuttals are right in front of you?
same trick you do with marx, pulling a chapter that is elaborated on 2 pages later pretending like you have some kind of gotcha
>>2202823
as was said here, which ends with another question i remember you not answering
and here
>>2234775
and here
>>2243926
here
>>2202818
here
>>2203784
and
>>2235701

its obviously deliberate

>>2309632
>what i failed to respond to
>>2309544
>This is meant as a joke right? Like the whole post?
this was also a question by the way. are you a protestant who upholds "sola fide" or do you believe in reason? isn't holding both beliefs a contradiction, which means there is a flaw in your logic? (those are also questions)

>>2309959
if you want people to engage in good faith you are going to have to actually participate in the conversation

>>2310690
i have not lacked any response, and therefore have responded to everything

>>2311437
why do you want to know? you clearly arent interested in corrections to your misunderstandings so theres no point. all of this has already been answered you are either incapable or doing it deliberately. we've long ago abandoned my own positions. ive just been correcting your distortions of marx and hegel.

those weren't even my posts or meant as questions for you to answer they are examples of multiple other people recognizing your game of taking things out of context, a behavior which your current line of questioning repeats. your questions have already been answered and you are either too dense to realize it or not looking because you dont want to know.

what is the "conversation"? indeed. enjoy your blog

>>2311481
>so you are literally too afraid
no i genuinely want to know your goal with all this but everytime i actually try to meet you half way you just start up your bullshit again like
>give one single example of me taking things out of context
you are responding to a post that tells you that there is a list of people accusing you of it, a list i compiled in about 2 minutes without extensive searching. your previous post is responding to a post explaining to you why 1+1 doesn't apply.
you completely ignore the explanation and just repeat the same thing. you ask for a list of questions you haven't answered then i ask you a question you do this childish mocking thing instead of answering the question. whats the point? you cant convince me to change my mind if you dont actually have a position other then being contrary to marx.
your questions are not even meant to understand my explanation of hegels position but to refute a strawman that has already been crucified and resurrected hundreds of times. the worst part is that you seem to truly not understand. its honestly disappointing because a lot of your own critique is deeply hegelian and could be interesting to discuss but you arent even capable of recognizing it despite apparently having read more than most of the board.
the part about kants ethics was originally a response to another one of your outbursts. seems thats how you think others should treat you. so everything i said is right. everything you said is wrong. ive only been transparent and honest and ive already answered all of your questions. too bad you are scared to confront the real dialectic

>>2313743
Brutal

>>2315602
>can someone explain
>*counterfactual with no supporting evidence*
higher productivity = richer
the us for example exports almost as much as china despite having 1/4th the working population
less narratives and more data

>>2315602
imperialism. particularly in the form of currency hegemony and offshore military bases. basically NATO, but especially america, gets to run up endless debt and never has to pay it off because nobody can make them. also all the "international" institutions are run by and for the benefit of the imperial core. America has permanent veto and security council seat at the UN. America uses a combination of CIA coups to to install comprador bourgeois compliant regimes followed by IMF loans to wreck competitor economies. Invasions can be used to balkanize nations too, as was the case with Yugoslavia.

>>2315602
read this excerpt btw

Michael.hudson is a crypto fascist ranting about (((financiers))) vs based productive industrialists

The fundamental thesis of third worldism is wrong. The wealth of advanced industrialized societies is primarily due to high labor productivity of those nations.

It's true that Western imperialism siphoned off massive amounts of wealth from their colonies. However that siphoned off wealth is still quite less than what countries actually produce by themselves through exploitation of homegrown labor.

It's also true that industrialization of 3rd world countries during direct colonization was deliberately hampered to prevent competition with 1st world.

But after decolonisation, most of the fault in lack of economic growth is due to the 3rd world govts themselves. A lot of them failed to develop strong, competent institutions. They were wracked with civil war or ethnic conflicts. There was/is lot of corruption, elite capture, incompetently managed dirigism etc.

It took a while for the bourgeoisie of these countries to get their shit together. And now we are kinda seeing a convergence of first world-third world incomes. It's a very long, arduous process. And I think the impatience and despair of people who thought the situation was hopeless led to ideological cope like Third-Worldism.

Now I'm not saying this as a Western imperialist shill. Western imperialism should still be fought by rejecting Western dominated institutions like IMF, strengthening up military power of 3rd world countries, forming local alliances etc.

But the 3rd world govts should not escape the blame game here, that's my main concern. A lot of them are still incredibly corrupt, extractive, comprador, oppress minorities/women etc, incompetent, bad at planning etc. Third Worldism shouldn't be a shield to uncritically defend the Third World ruling class.

>>2315747
Brutal, third worldist on suicide watch after learning that they have their share of fault on fucking their own countries.

>>2315755

>their share of fault

Unless the aforementioned Third-Worldists are in positions of power, no they can't be blamed

>>2315766
What it meant is people from place that was before exploited got their chance and got into power and yet fuck their own chances too, usually many people will blame other countries for their problems but they almost never blame their own stupid cultural practice or their actual way they manage the country.

>>2315602
this image is meant to answer a different question but I think it contains some of the answer to your question

>>2315747

I wanna add one more thing. The rapid industrialization of the 3rd world is historically progressive because it accelerates the contradictions of capitalism.

So for that reason, ironically, the """socialism""" paraded by some third world countries actually worked to stall historical progressive.

If India adopted standard capitalism instead of Nehruvian socialism back in the 1950s, they would have already been a serious capitalist competitor to the West and destabilized Western hegemony. Instead they wasted 40 years and started serious capitalism only in the 1990s.

It's a similar story in quite a few African, Middle East, South American and SEA countries. What is needed most right now is rapid industrialization of the 3rd world. Look at how China's industrialization is already causing chaos to Western economies. Not because of any active measures taken by the Chinese, but simply because capitalist competition and increase in OCC causes havoc to profit-rates a.k.a the very lifeblood of capitalism.

So since a communist revolution is unlikely in many 3rd world countries, the next best thing is to hope to have an actually competent capitalist govt that brings about 8%+ annual GDP growth to catch up to the 1st world.

>>2315747
>It's also true that industrialization of 3rd world countries during direct colonization was deliberately hampered to prevent competition with 1st world.
>after decolonisation
> A lot of them are still incredibly corrupt, extractive, comprador, oppress minorities/women etc, incompetent, bad at planning
decolonization only happened on paper. thats why a lot of them are corrupt, extractive, comprador

>>2315814
Nehru was a social democrat, not a socialist or communist

This thread should be called proudhonism general

>>2319198
no
>>2319600
no

If you could recommend 5 modern books about economics, what would those books be?

>>2342787
>muh rents
>"""unearned income"""
lol this is so blatantly a dogwhistle for jews

>>2343705
Does Hudson really suggest this? My impression for him is that unearned profit isn't profit received without corresponding productive labour but rather in absence of labour itself, that's why he advocates for taxing land and financial transactions and this also related to the hoarding value of money where people hoard forex to capitalize on exchange rate rather than releasing it to the economy. Ofc we can criticize this about how we differentiate absence of labour to non productive labour used to maintain complex social organizations (like if you're a street janitor)

>>2343705
im glad you agree :^)

>>2343757
in other words the whole of your critique of marx is that value is moral, which is subjective, which as has been pointed out previously, a political choice, and the refusal to clarify or delineate between the two different uses playing word games.
>i sympathise with this view from an opposite end, of lockean homesteading
which is certainly no less delusional than being a modern ancap, and has never historically resulted in genocide or justified atrocities
>and so rights belong to responsible tenants instead
indeed you would


>For him the dialectic movement is the dogmatic distinction between good and bad.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm

I wrote long posts in reply to some of the anons ITT but the posts I was replying to have been removed, possibly caught in a ban dragnet for when the anons in question broke site rules in a different thread. Now I cannot remember the context of the conversation, particularly my reply to >>2300704

Sigh.

>>2344300
Ah! Thanks. It wasn't about debt but about something else: "Vulgar anthropocentrism" in Marx which is addressed by Cockshott in >>2300773 this video and a different anon than me in this post >>2301520

I repost this here because i had posted it on the previous dead general, sorry for repeating the question

I want to learn economics, but i know i can't learn about the real economy from mainstream economics. This is why I, an ignorant, humbly ask of you people, who are wiser, to provide me some kind of non-bourgeoise manual for the foundations, or some kind of bibliography, and I'll truly bless you in my heart, comrades, i am completely lost in this subject. Some general guidance is also okay. I appreciate the youtube videos, but i like more to read, I am more used to seriousrly learn by studying a book and everyone who really wants to learn eventually must turn to them anyways. I see the bibliograpy also, but i feel like im too stupid to get into smith, ricardo and marx directly, as if i needed some context, but maybe im wrong, is that the first things i should read?

Stay strong and thank you very much for the attention!!!