What books do I read to get started with Marxism? I'm not sure if I entirely agree, but I think Marxism is a fascinating field and I would like to learn more about it other than the brief overview I know of, especially the Hegelian side. I already read Wage Labour and Capital.
>>25619274Wage labour is a great place to start.I would honestly read some Engels too. Socialism Scientific and Utopian is a great next one to read.I also dont consider Marxism a field oer say. Im not quite sure if know what it is. I know that I think theirs some truth in his thought.
>>25619274what did you think abut wage labor n capz?
>>25619274>get started with Marxism>already read Wage Labour and Capital
>>25619274The foundation of Marxism comes in two parts. 1) What drives the way societies have moved through history is how a society makes and divides up its material objects. In my opinion, practical people have understood this before recorded history was a thing -- you need men, they need weapons, the people need housing and food and the tools to make both. Systems of morals, religion, traditions, or the leadership of great men all mean very little if the material realities aren't there.2) Every man can only do the work of one man, so when we have men who own or control more of the material realities of a society than other men do they can only have gotten those materials by claiming ownership of the work of others. This is more debatable than number 1 above, but if you allow for an occasional exception or for some small variation in reasonable ownership I think this principle is hard to refute as well.On top of this foundation there's a huge amount other theory and plenty of suggestions about better ways ("better" here usually means more fair, but increasing stability is a big concern as well) to build a society. So you should be careful what you mean when you say you don't know if you agree with Marxism. Part of the reason Marxism has been called out and so violently opposed is because a lot of it is obviously true and obviously makes sense, and you don't have to go too far from those parts of Marxism to the parts that threaten the comfort and livelihood of a particularly powerful group of people.Reading source texts for Marxism can be brutally difficult. There are some that were written for a lay audience, fortunately, but once you want to go past them you're going to have to dig in your spurs.
>>25619274I won't recommend that you start by reading the Marxist Classics, because they're all incredibly dependent on historical context, to provide a proper reading, and you'd end up having to segue into later literature to have any idea how this theory applies to the present, anyway, so I'll recommend starting with modern Marxist literature, and then reading the classics, once you've found your footing. It's traditional, for beginners to studying Marxism, to break it down into three component parts, and study them separately. Namely: Marxian Economics, Scientific-Socialism, and Dialectical-Materialism. For Economics, I'd recommend a decent big reference source, such as The Elgar Companion to Marxist Economics, or the Routledge Handbook of Marxian Economics. If you're complete beginner, who can't quite manage those, then try something like David Ruccio's Marxian Economics: An Introduction, or Hadas Thier's A People's Guide to Capitalism. Once you understand the basics, move on to reading Das Kapital on the one hand, (preferably with a companion of some sort, David Harvey's is good), and Howard & King's History of A History of Marxian Economics on the other hand. Once you've finished both of those, it provides you with the grounding you need to read any of the later Marxist Economic Classics. For Philosophy, things get much more complicated. While Marx & Engels began as young-Hegelians, and were dialectical materialists, 99% of the stuff they wrote about philosophy was either engaging with Hegel's ideas about ethics, and culture on the one hand; or using his theory of history as a jumping off point for the development of their own sociological and historiographical ideas on the other. Later generations of Marxists, both in the Soviet Union, and in the West, then kind of re-Hegelized Marxism, by making Dialectics specifically a much more prominent, and essential aspect of Marxist philosophy, in turn making it so that you can't really understand most Marxist philosophy, *especially* 20th Century Marxist philosophy, without a grounding in Hegelianism.
>>25619406It was kind of ok. The last chapter was really interesting, as well as the idea that supply and demand aren't really the driver of price and instead price is defined as the production cost multiplied by some profit markup.
>>25619494oh cool i should read itprice is an utterly artificial bottleneck regarding control of acces to the last buyer in the chain of buyers, the final product buyers, ie, the most massively unskilledOR OR OR ORO ORO OR the buyer mostl likely to be fucked.
im sorry if this is a stupid question but is the concept of competition addressed in marxism? it seems to me this fundamental aspect of people and nature itself contradicts these ideas
>>25619274go with "Dialectic of Enlightenent"
>>25619562Yes, competition is addressed explicitly, from many angles, and often.
>>25619585is it a goal to minimize competition?
>>25619274Read Das Capital and the Wealth of Nations.It will give you a fair and balanced perspective on the ideals behind capitalism and socialism.
>>25619594Or as its often referred to, "Capital"
>>25619589Marxism is not the blunt instrument that it's portrayed to be by the right. It is a practical body of thought that is trying to optimize the benefit of the work people do for the entire human race.Competition is considered as a source of motivation, as a thing that effects pricing, as a kind of cultural poison. Where it leads to mistreatment or unfairness it is sometimes targeted for minimization, yes.I feel like I'm probably not answering the question you're asking exactly. To see how Marx talked about one aspect of competition you can skim though this: https://www.panarchy.org/marx/competition.htmlThe question maybe you are actually asking me is does Marxism ignore that people are often competitive and try to get ahead of each other. It does not. This is seen as generally being a problem, and the solution to problems in Marxism is usually to take a practical approach to managing them.
>>25619274John Spargo
>>25619281Once you read Engels your journey will end because it's so laughably bad and disconnected from history, philosophy, and reality. So start there and kick the brainfrying habit straight off.
>>25619274He has a lot of good takes like being pro-gun, pro-border, he understands that religion is necessary for a society to function, western culture is superior to non-western cultures, and he's anti-jew.
>>25619987care to expand?
>>25619274Start by watching interracial cuckold porn, specifically BLACKED porn.After that read Black Future by Whitney Ryan and other interracial cuckold smut.
>>25619494>supply and demand aren't really the driver of pricei am so glad to hear marx say this finally
>>25619274'Wage Labor and Capital' by Marx and Engels is a good introduction into the basic concepts that doesn't require dedicating a year to reading it like 'Das Kapital'.Lenin's 'Imperialism - The Highest Stage of Capitalism' is another great read but you should read Marx first.
>>25619274>false flag thread #3,748
>>25619274Begin by holding a knife up against the bridge of your nose and running into a wall, left wing hog.
>>25621317>false flag
>>25621317You do realize the image on the left is still working as intended, right?Propaganda will do it's thing no matter the context.
>>25619478>Part of the reason Marxism has been called out and so violently opposed is because a lot of it is obviously trueLol. Lmao even.
>>25621719CANT STAND THE TRVKE, HUH?
>>25619274>What books do I read to get started with Marxism?Get a job and experience the alienation instead of committing intellect masturbation while doing few to no labor like every 'marxists' I've met nowadays.
>>25621848>Get a job and experience the alienationlol
>>25621719NTA but which part do you not like? Dialectical materialism is pretty much common sense by this point. It's the logical conclusion to Kant. It's also common sense that human society works by sharing and exchanging the products of each other's labour and the exorbitant material life of so called "elites" in any era directly and logically corresponds to taking away more from society's combined labour than everyone else. Which itself is a consequence of the division between intellectual command of labor and actual physical/mental labour, as stated in the master/slave concept. It then logically follows that true freedom and equality is not possible unless workers take direct intellectual command of their own labour. If you doubt dialectical materialism then how would you explain that human society never cared too much about freedom or equality in it's 10000 years of history, until steam engine and machines and capitalist mode of production became a thing.
>>25621901You're entire argument hinges so much on premises you never proved true that it's not even worth it to deconstruct them. But let's do it anyway.>Dialectical materialism is pretty much common sense by this point. It's the logical conclusion to Kant.Dialetics is retarded, because you can frame anything as a synthesis. Also, how can deciding that reality is material the logical conclusion that the true nature of reality is unknowable? "Oh but we can understand a natural process well enough to produce it ourselves, so the nature of reality is knowable". Engels showing he's a brainlet by not understanding Kant. Understanding appearances and understanding the thing-in-itself are two different things.>It's also common sense that human society works by sharing and exchanging the products of each other's labourThat works on the assumption that labour is what the only source of value, which has not only been never proven, but it also has plenty of counter-examples, like wine.> exorbitant material life of so called "elites" in any era directly and logically corresponds to taking away more from society's combined labour than everyone elseConsuming labour isn’t “taking” unless contribution is smaller than consumption. Most elite wealth isn’t spent on lifestyle, it’s invested as capital that funds production and employment. Elon Musk doesn't have 1 trillion dollars on the bank.>Which itself is a consequence of the division between intellectual command of labor and actual physical/mental labour, as stated in the master/slave concept.It then logically follows that true freedom and equality is not possible unless workers take direct intellectual command of their own labour.Yeah, let's have a bunch of bureaucrats in the party decide what should be done instead. It's much more equal, since we call them comrades and they're workers just like us!>If you doubt dialectical materialism then how would you explain that human society never cared too much about freedom or equality in it's 10000 years of history, until steam engine and machines and capitalist mode of production became a thing.That's what happens when you only read books that were written after the 1800s.
>>25619274critique of gotha programmebtfo dem reformist niqqas
>>25619274I don't much care for Marx but he's right every now and then. Mostly dislike him for metaphysical reasons.
>>25622639>Dialetics is retarded, because you can frame anything as a synthesisbro, dialectics goes back to Plato. its just discussing a thing until it becomes more clear and defined. none of your statements on this really have much to do with it.
>>25622639>That works on the assumption that labouryoure the one making assumptions. after all, wine doesnt make itself. nor does it put itself into a jar. nor does it travel itself to a place where it can be exchanged by itself. youre taking a bit of an offhand comment and twisting it into some thesis irrelevant to it.
>>25622639>Dialetics is retarded, because you can frame anything as a synthesisThat's not even an argument. Dialectical logic is very apparent in Control Theory, or any kind of non dynamic system for that matter. It's also apparent in biological evolution and other scientific phenomena. >Understanding appearances and understanding the thing-in-itself are two different things.Nothing to do with my point. >That works on the assumption that labour is what the only source of valueMy statement said nothing of "value". It is a simple obvious fact that human society works via combined social labour (unlike Tigers or polar bears) . This has been true for hunter gatherers and it is true for us. >contribution is smaller than consumption.No elite can contribute in labour more than he consumes. An elite's lifestyle takes 1000s of man hours to maintain while he himself has only 24 hours in a day. >Most elite wealth isn’t spent on lifestyle, it’s invested as capital that funds production and employment. Elon Musk doesn't have 1 trillion dollars on the bank.Yes. Money/investment/capital is an instrument of control and dominance over other people's labour. We already know that. But we still have Elon Musk's average consumption exceed most people. What makes the elites "elite" on the most basic level is that with their command as masters they can make others do labour for themselves and their own consumption. >Yeah, let's have a bunch of bureaucrats in the party decide what should be done instead. It's much more equal, since we call them comrades and they're workers just like us!Nice strawman.>That's what happens when you only read books that were written after the 1800s.Lol. You didn't even bother with this one because you don't have an answer. Marx was right in that there would be no French revolution without rapidly expanding capitalism and industry. Medeival peasants would never have revolted against their kings and nobles for "muh freedom" and "muh democracy"
this based black man banger is all you need
>>25624365>*non-linear dynamic
>>25619274Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844Das Kapital is super boring
