If you think bullshit like Unequal Exchange, Dependency Theory, and World Systems Theory are Marxist, then you clearly haven't actually read Marx. It's just early Frankfurt School self-jizzing paired with other sociologies and a bit of Ricardian economics and Hilferding sprinkled into it for good measure. Hell, some people even make shit up about Lenin having something to do with it, like sure, Lenin's elaborations on the state, imperialism, etc. are half-assed, some borderline midwit but it was never THIS retarded.
>>2311884think dialectically you moron
equalizing exchange is the first step to abolishing it
how can exchange be abolished with one nation having a superior advantage over others that's just theft
>>2311992>sellhis books are free for people who can't afford them
>opportunisthe's in a communist party unlike you probably
>democracyyes communists speak about proletarian democracy. Lenin:
<the workers of the whole world sympathise with the Soviet Republic precisely because they regard it as a proletarian democracy, a democracy for the poor, and not a democracy for the rich that every bourgeois democracy, even the best, actually is.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm>academicanti intellectual weasel word used to shame educated workers
>>2312078>he's in a communist party unlike you probablyI'm in a union and strike committee instead of politically inert larping and wanking sessions.
>yes communists speak about proletarian democracy. Lenin:Pseuds love lying about what this means. Lenin does explicitly talk about proletarian democracy, but of course you retards misunderstand what he means. You think it's some sort of special version of the democratic procedure that automatically produces a 'proletarian' outcome.
>anti intellectual weasel word used to shame educated workersNevermind that proletarians are forced to work the most unskilled jobs and worker is not synonymous with proletarian, that faggot is a literal university professor you retarded troglodyte.
Reminder that nobody likes you.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm >>2311864>>2311886>>2311898>>2312006Solidarity with bourgeois nation-states isn't a mode of production, it's a narrative. Marxism analyzes structure, not guilt. Marxism does not deny global disparity, it explains it. Unequal conditions within countries don't make up a class.
This redefines the primary contradiction of capitalism (labor against capital) into a moralized binary. This is liberalism dressed to appear revolutionary. There's no explanatory power here, just a static hierarchy of victimhood. Same with similar "theories" like settler-colonial theory.
>>2312122>I'm in a union and strike committee instead of politically inert larping and wanking sessions.It's good to be a union but there needs to be a vanguard party to carry out revolution. Unions just negotiate for higher wages under the existing system.
>You think it's some sort of special version of the democratic procedure that automatically produces a 'proletarian' outcome.I didn't say that. Good job making up shit I didn't say and then attacking that.
>Nevermind that proletarians are forced to work the most unskilled jobs and worker is not synonymous with proletarian, that faggot is a literal university professor you retarded troglodyte.And Marx had a PhD in the classics, Lenin was a lawyer, and so was Castro. Do we dismiss Marxists on the basis of their academic credentials just because they aren't manual laborers? That is anti intellectualism.
>Reminder that nobody likes you.Not an argument
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htmUmm excuse me sweaty Engels was an intellectual and not a manual laborer so umm I don't have to listen to him
>>2311855I haven't read unequal exchange yet but I'm pretty sure the deindustrialization of America shows that absolute rent and how high organic composition of capital (basically hi-tech) sectors suck investment out of the low OCC sectors is true.
Basically, Wall Street and Silicon Valley colonized the Rust Belt and the rest of America.
>World Systems TheoryI found some interesting articles by searching for that phrase and "Nixon" + "China"
this one is great:
https://redsails.org/jiang-on-empire/> The “U.S.-China decoupling” that has been the focus of public discussion in recent years would be better understood as an effort on the part of the U.S. to expel China from the “world imperial system.” Therefore, the U.S.-China struggle is not only about the fate of the two countries, but also about the future of the world order itself, i.e., is the whole world subservient to the U.S.-dominated world empire, or will it establish truly equal international relations between sovereign states? When the U.S. and Soviet superpowers were trying to build two different types of world empires, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that emerged in countries like India and China intended to create a more fair and rational international order. Today’s U.S.-China rivalry represents a struggle over these two world visions and the shared destiny of humanity.
<Controlled economic liberalization nonetheless created conditions for neoliberal thinking. An emphasis on economic growth arguably created a popular misunderstanding of the relationship between politics and economics, in what Wang Hui calls the “depoliticized politics” of the Deng era. Such thinking also coincided with pro-American ideology and a popular belief in the intertwined destinies of China and the United States. In the wake of the 2008 Western financial crisis, slogans such as “to save America is to save China” (救美国就是救中国) and “China-U.S. couple theory” (中美夫妻论) reflected China’s perceived national interest in stabilizing the capitalist world economy from internal collapse, and the belief that ideological and political divergences between China and the Western capitalist world could be resolved by economic cooperation alone. https://www.qiaocollective.com/articles/end-of-engagement >>2311987>but calling it unequal exchange obfuscate Marx central thesis that exchange is always exchange of equivalents.but thats only referring to value. unequal exchange isn't about value. productivity differences are not inherent they are a result of imperialism and dependency and make the trade structurally unequal. quibbling over "unequal" when its not even referring to value only serves to obscure the structural inequality and is used to say other countries are less productive because they are lazy/stupid/corrupt or to excuse imperialist countries as the source of the problem
cockshott isn't exactly wrong but hes not even talking about the same thing and does not address the above so he is not exactly correct either he just stops at productivity and ignores imperialism.
>>2311855marx's point about equal exchange isn't even about trade in general but about the production of surplus value as profit. he holds that exchange is equal in the trade of wage for labor power as an average in aggregate so that the source of profit is the difference between the labor power and its product which is appropriated by the capitalist.
this does not mean that individual wage laborers must necessarily be equal, and just like the exchange of commodities marx actually says that in practice it is necessarily unequal, but that this is not the source of profit as it averages out in the total.
in the same way that a capitalist might set up a factory in a shitty part of town to pay people less, or how they might employ migrants who will accept less than the average wage, on a global scale international corporations can do the same, and when they do they in fact to capture more value. but this value is not created in exchanging less for more, it is appropriated from its competitors who pay more for less and washes out in the total.
unequal exchange is real, and marxist. it is not the source of profit, profit is not created in exchange, but it is one strategy used by capitalists to appropriate profit from other capitalists by competing in the market, which is exactly why marx tells us that in practice individual trades are not equal.
by insisting that exchange has to be equal you are actually closer to making a mudpie argument than actually following marx
>>2311884>>2311892It's not a moral concept, it's just analysis that says value produced by periphery economies is appropriated by capital from core economies. This is part of imperialism in the economic and not moral sense. And incidentally it's also one of the many reasons why a periphery country (Russia, Iran, etc.) cannot be imperialist.
Obviously if you want socialism to succeed in a periphery country then you should try to overcome this relationship as much as possible by nationalizing industries and moving away from exporting only resources, semi-finished goods and labour power. But if you want to be a comprador porky then unequal exchange should indirectly be your goal.
It looks ugly when it is about capitalism, it imply giving preference to local bourge or some people use it to say things like that. But if it was productuon by laborers, it could tell them what to optimize or make locally. it can as I think only be done by labor. Local bourge, the theory concludes if I'm not making that up, is that local bourge can't accumulate enough profit for doing optimizations or development. May be they can, but it will be ugly, by making work day longer. But also the same unequal exchange will be built, but locally, while may be not as unequal lol, given labor can move freely in the country. While if it is not by bourge, but by labor, it just need to change their activity to fix that, they can think of that as freeing their time.
Third world countries are poor because their ruling class fail to develop strong cohesive institutions, they fail to bring corruption, instability, violence etc under control. Their states allows or even helps in the formation of cliques of elites that monopolize ownership of land and capital, thus stifling capitalist competition.
This is why Marx unironically was pro-colonialism in the instances when it destroyed the old stagnant social relations of the colonized and replaced it with a more vital capitalism. This is why Engels talked about the US conquering Calfornia from Mexico being a good thing.
The idea that the introduction of capitalism magically automatically results in rapid industrialization, economic growth etc, is a false idea. This false idea is what causes people to desperately search for some nebulous outside factor when this doesn't happen. The reality is that there is a human factor here. You need a stable society, good institutions, good levels of social cohesion, good human capital like an educated, hardworking population, low crime rates etc.
>>2329135>The wealth transfer i.e. "unequal exchange" stems from the production, not through trade/exchange.no lol. the wealth is created in production, its appropriated in exchange. your conflating the economy as a whole with the actions of individuals. individual exchanges are always above or below the actual value, and total value is always equal to total price, by definition.
>If therefore, the capitalist who applies the new method, sells his commodity at its social value of one shilling, he sells it for threepence above its individual value, and thus realises an extra surplus-value of threepence. On the other hand, the working day of 12 hours is, as regards him, now represented by 24 articles instead of 12. Hence, in order to get rid of the product of one working day, the demand must be double what it was, i.e., the market must become twice as extensive. Other things being equal, his commodities can command a more extended market only by a diminution of their prices. He will therefore sell them above their individual but under their social value, say at tenpence each. By this means he still squeezes an extra surplus-value of one penny out of each. This augmentation of surplus-value is pocketed by him, whether his commodities belong or not to the class of necessary means of subsistence that participate in determining the general value of labour-power. Hence, independently of this latter circumstance, there is a motive for each individual capitalist to cheapen his commodities, by increasing the productiveness of labour. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch12.htm Unique IPs: 31