Marx says: "Now, all of you know that the average wages of the American agricultural labourer amount to more than double that of the English agricultural labourer, although the prices of agricultural produce are lower in the United States than in the United Kingdom, although the general relations of capital and labour obtain in the United States the same as in England, and although the annual amount of production is much smaller in the United States than in England"

Is there any equivalent of that in the present time?

Hey all,

I'm currently reading through Hegel's the Phenomenology of Spirit, and, as a novice Marxist, I was hoping to get some pointers to Marx's specific critiques of Hegel across Marx's works. Obviously, there are many cases of this, such as in Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, but I was looking for a slightly more in-depth breakdown of where to find the most important critiques. Thank you in advance!

Hello everyone,

I've heard many times that Marx believed an industrialized society was required for a revolution and then establishment of communism. In such a way that a country like the Russian Empire or China were not serious contenders in his mine, but a more heavily industrialized nation like Germany or England was.

If anyone knows a quote that more explicitly lays this out that would be very helpful, I'm writing a paper in which such a quote would be great and I can't seem to find if it is real or not.

Thanks in advance!

This video provides a great analysis of sex work under Communism

I’m sure it has something to do with unproductive labor, but when workers aren’t using their labor to generate commodities that create surplus value, how do we then situate them in capital?

I wrote a mini-essay to lay out my current understanding of Marxism and the dialectical method. I chose not to refer to other texts to test my self-study up to this point, and I tried to keep it as brief as possible. Please give me feedback of any holes or mischaracterization in my current understanding.

​

Marxism is a worldview which uses a programmatic, scientific method to analyze and understand history, economics, politics, and society. The underlying philosophical outlook of Marxism is dialectical materialism.
To understand dialectical materialism in its entirety, its various components must be examined. Philosophical materialism posits that matter precedes thought, and that thoughts are therefore products of matter. Marx's materialism differs from philosophers of the past as Marx's materialism is dialectical, as in the material conditions and man's thoughts shape and reshape each other ad nauseam.
Dialectics, according to Lenin, is the "study of the contradictions within the essence of things". Within all things are internal antagonisms that exist united in their opposition, and it is through the resolution of these contradictions which drives development. the resolution of contradictions is characterized by gradual, quantitative change followed by rapid qualitative change. To understand the principle of dialectics, one can examine how liquid water transforms into steam. In its liquid form, the temperature of the water and its liquid state stand united, yet in opposition. As the temperature of the water rises (gradual quantitative change), the internal contradiction of the temperature and the liquid state begins to sharpen. Once its boiling point is reached, the internal contradictions must resolve themselves. The temperature must be decreased, or the water must go through a rapid, qualitative change and become steam. Development is the resolution of contradictions through revolutionary change.
It is important to understand that dialectical materialism looks at the world as whole and inseparable from any other part of nature. Therefore, to understand any phenomena, one must examine the context surrounding it. Additionally, all phenomena change and develop. So in order to fully understand any phenomena, one must examine it within its context, as well as examine how it changes and develops. To give a clarifying example, to understand an oak tree, it would be insufficient to examine it at a sapling or fully matured. To fully understand an oak tree, one must examine its entire life cycle, the soil from which it comes, its roots, how it changes from season to season, and how it relates to its ecosystem. The same principle is applied to examining any phenomena of society or nature.
Historical materialism is dialectical materialism applied to history and the development of society. Historical materialism examines the development of the productive forces; that being man's labor, tools, and raw materials used in the productive process. Along with the development of the productive forces, historical materialism examines the relations of production, how one relates to the means of production and the productive process. As when man labors, his labor has a definite relationship with every other laborer. For example, in the production of a chair, there is a laborer who cuts the lumber. That lumber is transported by another laborer to a factory. When it arrives there are laborers who cut and strip the lumber to be turned into whatever form of commodity it may take. Another laborer then turns the finished lumber into a chair. In each step in production laborers relate to each other in some way.
To clarify, historical materialism examines the development driven through the resolution of contradictions between the forces of production, and the relations of production. As the forces of production develop in the form of new tools, technologies, and methods; the forces of production reach a "boiling point" with the current relations of production. When this boiling point is reached, the forces of production must either be destroyed, or the old relations of production are overthrown and replaced with new ones.
Production is the underlying engine of society, as without the necessities of life such as food, water, clothing, housing, etc, society at large would not be able to function. It is important to note that Marx and Engels did not put forward the notion that economics and production itself mechanically drive society, but rather that production served as the foundation for other parts of society to build on top. Politics, religion, the state, and all other societal constructs at their foundation have an economic basis. These "superstructures", as Marx described, have a dialectical relationship with its economic base, each changing and developing the other.

Hi guys, I'm relatively new when it comes to Marxism and leftist theory in general so I'm trying to read as much of the literature as I can so I can understand it better, but I'm struggling with the concept of surplus value. Where does the surplus actually come from, is it measurable or is it all just arbitrary and subjective? And why exactly shouldn't capitalist be entitled to some of it?

I'd really appreciate if you could use some examples for the explanation as well. Thanks 🙏 (excuse my English)

In Marxism the bourgeoisie consists of those who own the means of production and can therefore choose to stop working without (important) consequences. So how do people who worked all their life and then retire fit into this? Isn't the pension these people get from the state comparable to owning capital in the form of stocks. Does this make retirees part of the bourgeoisie? That's seems absurd.

I'm just genuinely confused and interested in understanding marxism and communism.

I want to read Capital but I'd like a guide / companion or something to it. Any recommendations ?

Most concepts for "replacing" police I've seen come from anarchists, and it seems overly idealist. They generally involve things like support services and social workers, and while these things would obviously decrease crime, I don't see how they would entirely prevent it. What is the Marxist answer to justice and preventing crime?

I understand that Lenin provides certain characteristics to specify what he means by imperialism. However, why would this be the final stage of capitalism and the beginning of communism? What scientific arguments does he offer for such a statement?

I am not an expert in theory and I am interested in learning. Please, respond in a scientific manner.

I know that's kind of a broad topic, but I was wondering if there are any resources on this. I know of The Cambridge History of 20th Century Political Thought, but I'm looking for wider variety of resources.

Pretty much the title. I'm working on political economy and since political economy has largely always been economic centric, i came across this in a research paper (Ryan, C. C. (1981). The Fiends of Commerce: Romantic and Marxist criticisms of classical political economy. History of Political Economy, 13(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-13-1-80, Page 93) and was wondering if anyone can help me out. Thanks!

Now that sociology is under attack in the Free State of Florida I think it's time for me to break out some of my old lectures. I've reimagined my Marx lecture for Introduction to Sociology and will be posting what is looking like a three-part project at the Mad Sociologist Blog. The goal is to offer an intro to Marxist theory as it pertains to sociology. https://madsociologistblog.com/2024/03/04/what-do-taylor-swift-and-karl-marx-have-in-common/

A good primer on Hegel and his influence on Marx

https://links.org.au/dialectic-service-revolution#:\~:text=Marxist%20revolutionaries%20strive%20to%20analyze,goal%20of%20fundamentally%20changing%20it.

What does Marx mean by this quote in Chapter 3, part A of volume 1?
"The owners of commodities therefore find out that the same division of labor which turns them into independent private producers also makes the social process of production and the relations of the individual producers to each other within that process independent of the producers themselves; they also find out that the independence of the individuals from each other has as its counterpart and supplement a system of all-around material dependence." (pg 202 in Penguin Classics translation)
I fairly understand that the main conclusion is that capitalism turns men into a cycle of dependence on commodities, but it still seems fairly wordy, if anyone can help clarify further

This question is about the math behind the "three department" model in Part IV of chapter 20.

Under the two department model, in Department II the variable capital (v) and surplus value (s) produced are both set to an amount of 500 (same rate of surplus value as in Department I). For the three department model, Marx sets IIa (necessities) to 400 for both s and v; and IIb (luxuries) is set to 100 for both. So the initial 500 (or 1,000) is split 80% / 20% between Departments IIa and IIb.

Before reading any further or working the math out in detail, I understood that the capitalists of all three departments would be using surplus value (s) to purchase luxuries from IIb (because in this model, only capitalists purchase luxuries), but also some necessities from IIa. I had figured in my head that the proportion of necessities to luxuries purchased by the capitalists would need to reflect the same 80/20 split that the production takes on between Departments IIa and IIb. In other words, I expected capitalists in IIa to spend 320 on necessities (0.8 * 400) and 80 on luxuries (0.2 * 400). And the capitalists in IIb would spend 80 on necessities (0.8 * 100) and 20 luxuries (0.2 * 100). I thought that was how the algebra would pan out.

But then Marx goes on to say the split between consumption of necessities and luxuries is 60/40 i.e. three-fifths in necessities and two-fifths in luxuries. He doesn't explain how he got this split, but I then worked out the math in the model and it all ties out in equilibrium. I then tinkered around with the math. I tried adjusting the ratio of production from 80/20 to 75/25, and keeping the ratio of consumption at 60/40. That broke the math and things did not tie off i.e. disequilibrium. However, with the 75/25 split in production, if you change the ratio of consumption to 50/50, things do actually all add up fine.

I feel like there has to be some algebraic formula that I'm missing. That was never my strongest subject. How are these two ratios (of production of necessities/luxuries and consumption of necessities/luxuries) different proportions but are also tied together that you can correctly calculate one if you have the other?

Titles pretty self explanatory, but I've already read a few notable works, Das Capital, The Manifesto, Society of the spectacle

im an art student and i am trying to figure out how to make it useful. ofc critique and propaganda are the first things to come to mind.

i am looking for recommendations on theory.

what role should art play? what should i rn specifically as a student? how can it be most effective? how can i navigate a bourgeois art world? do i just not?

any input helps if it gives me a direction to research into.

sadly i havent gotten any satisfactory guidance at my very liberal school, but i am looking to talk (and organize) with my local communists, so that will be a space to take the local conditions into account and pick a strategy.

i mostly do writing and painting/sculpting, but im happy with anything even if it isn't specifically about those disciplines.

Good Afternoon,

If you study the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin, they view the 'negation of the negation' as a law, ie, a general, necessary, essential, and eternal quality or relation of objective phenomena.

In Anti-Duhring, Friedrich also concentrates on 'sublation' and the qualitative morphing of the lower form into the higher form while conserving the essence of the lower in the higher. He gives the example of a caterpillar and a butterfly, if I recall correctly.

I saw the two, ie, negation of the negation and sublation, as the same law presented differently, one as a double negative and one as a positive.

Point blank, does the negation of the negation truly constitute a law? Also, why phrase it as a double negative instead of a positive?

I would like to open a discussion on this particular subject, in case anyone can share any more helpful examples or points on sublation, or the laws of dialectical materialism in general, thank you.

Good Evening,

I would like to know the meaning and values of aesthetics from a Marxist view.

I have looked at The Dictionary of Philosophy by Richard Dixon and Progress Publishers, a partisan dialectical-materialism dictionary from the Soviet Union, and also looked at The Dictionary of Revolutionary Marxism by Massline.org, and I still cannot quite place my finger on the true meaning.

1. Does Marxist aesthetics pertain strictly to the valuation of art, ie, objects of human production?

1A. If yes, does that mean one cannot valuate the aesthetics of a natural phenomenon like a sunset?

1B. Can Marxist aesthetics valuate human-produced objects of economic utility that do not normally classify as art per se, such as a technology or machine instead of a painting or music, for example?

2. Does Marxist aesthetics strictly evaluate objects of art by whether they further the revolutionary-socialist and dialectical-materialist worldview?

I feel like contemporary Marxists do not discuss aesthetics as often as they did in the 1800-1900s. If you can give any clarity on these points, it would help immensely, thank you.

I'm reading the communist manifesto and it might be because I'm dyslexic but I can't for the life of me understand a word of what the reactionary Socialism section is saying is there a video that has a good breakdown of that section.

For context, I am very underdeveloped theoretically and practically, but try to follow a dialectical materialist framework as the philosophical basis of my analysis and practice, and am coming at this question in good faith. (This is a long post and I'm also looking for somewhat in depth answers, even if it just means suggesting a book)
I am currently organized with a group called "Socialist Revolution" which is the US section of the "International Marxist Tendency" (IMT). They put Trotsky to a similar level of importance and theoretical correctness as Lenin, Marx, and Engels, and openly denounce Stalin and the "bureaucracy" that he represented. They also openly denounce the current state of China, and seem to have iffy opinions on (other?) existing socialist countries. I have not researched or conducted analysis the Soviet Union, Stalin, Trotsky and such, however their opinions on Stalin and the "bureaucracy" in the union seem really strange to me.
I have encountered many comrades who denounce trotskyists, and go as far as to say that it is counter productive to work with them (or say that I am a fed for saying that I work with the IMT). I am wondering what theoretical works touch on the primary contradictions between the so called trotskyists and stalinists. I am also wondering what you personally think is the best course of action, or your opinions on the division between those 2 groups. For context, I live in the Minnesota state of the USA, and the IMT seems to be the best organization I could find.
It may be helpful to note that the branch that I currently work with SEEMS to be acting in good faith and have positive motivations, but I don't know if they are doing unproductive work. Most of the stuff the US section works on is education for branches through meetings weekly, education through their papers, and recruitment to the organization for already radicalized people, but obviously the education is very anti-stalin and upholds the ideas of trotsky as incredibly important in the proletarian struggle (I don't know how correct these ideas are, but am leaning against it).
Thank you so much if you decide to answer, I am just trying to organize and do what I can to help, but I cannot determine what is the best course of action, partly because of how decisive and somewhat antagonistic this topic is. Have a great day and keep up the fight! (This has been posted on a couple of subs btw so I'm sorry if you are bothered by it)

I'm not too confident in my understanding of Marxism, mosty Wage-Labor and Capital and Value, Price, and Profit and was wondering if any quizes were available.

Occasionally I'll see Marxist discourse about these two concepts, and I'd like to know what they are and how they relate to Marxism.

exchange value and the things that decided a commodities exchange is social labour time, I don't get it, if I exchange a gun with food, it's not becauce social lbour time, it's becauce I need food more, and if I exchange 5 video games with a headphone, it's becauce 5 video games costs as much money as a headset, not becauce of anything else, is it that I disagree or am I missing something? should I continou reading :)

Good Evening,

I love dialectical and historical materialism. They truly have helped me to better contextualize the activity of the world, society, and the individual.

One idea has jumped out at me as both exciting and confusing, namely, historical necessity, i.e., the determinism that stages of political-economy have evolved by necessity of their material conditions, and thus have cultivated different forms of social relations relative to those stages.

For example, Joseph Stalin said in his Dialectical and Historical Materialism, quoting:

...if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated ... from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.

The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system.

This passage means, and other Marxists have outright said, that the social forms of tyranny in world history have occurred by necessity, and that they view it as a mistake to moralize them as evil in retrospect.

I would like more clarity on the implications of this idea of historical necessity.

Does it mean that every stage of society, mode of economy, and form of political state needed to occur in an absolute sense? As an analogy, if aliens dropped off an early tribe of Homo sapiens onto an identical second earth, would those primitive humans necessarily evolve through the same social stages because they experienced identical material conditions as humans did on the first earth?

Does historical necessity limit the scope of morality strictly to evaluating social forms according to their contemporary stage of material conditions? If yes, would this mean slavery was good in ancient time, but evil in modern time, because the slave relations complemented the material conditions of the past but not the present? Does slavery in 2,000 BCE become right, but slavery in 1800s CE become wrong? If slavery was necessary, why did Karl Marx love Spartacus and his slave revolt?

How does one know definitively whether a social form is historically necessary at any given stage of material conditions in human evolution? Does the mere existence of a social form automatically mean it is historically necessary?

If socialism constitutes a historical necessity according to the material conditions of large-scale industrial production, then how can it not exist? Is capitalism a necessity too? If yes, then why should I revolt against it?

You can see the areas of confusion. I need more clarity on evaluating the necessity and morality of social forms relative to the material conditions, thank you.

Apparently this is a notoriously challenging chapter. I've been slowly working through it. John Fox's commentary has been helpful. After reading volume I, I sort of assumed that even though Marx focuses on production, that any socially-necessary labor that takes place from production through circulation and back into money capital created value. I'm now seeing how complicated the circulation process can be, and how labor fits into that is unclear to me at the moment.

Essentially, I'm having a hard time seeing how Marx delineates between productive and unproductive labor. At first glance, it doesn't appear too complicated: as Fox says:

productive labor is labor that produces a useful effect... to be productive, labor must be productive of use-value

So if the labor adds use value, then it's productive labor and then presumably adds value and surplus value to the commodity. Simple enough.

Where I'm getting tripped up on is, this feels far too restrictive. Or at least, some of the examples Marx (and also Fox) uses, it seems to me like the activity should be considered productive labor but Marx considers it unproductive.

To me, if workers in a factory make a linen coat, without a large number of other workers, that coat will sit on the factory floor and become useless. There is a whole chain of workers and means of production that are needed to get the coat into the hands of the ultimate user of it. You need a warehouse and workers in that warehouse to move it off the factory floor to there. You need IT people to manage the ERP system that says how much and what needs to be produced, and where it needs to go. Maybe tax accountants are unproductive labor, but there are cost accountants and inventory accountants that are needed to make sure there are accurate counts of everything that that the other workers are paid wages correctly, for example. In theory people could pick up a coat at a warehouse but practically speaking you need transportation to get it to a store and you need workers there who can help complete the purchase of the coat. Without all of these workers, I think you could question whether the coat would be able to be consumed by a final user.

I know Marx would consider some of that work productive and some of it unproductive. What I'm struggling with is, I have a hard time seeing what's the method he is using to determine which is which? I get that it's not about being able to identify whether each specific form of labor falls under the productive or unproductive category. And I don't feel "productive" work is more important, either, so I'm not wedded to any notions of certain work being classified as productive or unproductive. I just feel Marx is not giving sufficient analytic tools to the reader for them to be able how to categorize work for themselves.

Any thoughts from the folks here?

In the second place, it must be borne in mind that, despite the fluctuations in the prices of commodities, the average price of every commodity, the proportion in which it exchanges for other commodities, is determined by its cost of production. The acts of overreaching and taking advantage of one another within the capitalist ranks necessarily equalize themselves. The improvements of machinery, the new applications of the forces of nature in the service of production, make it possible to produce in a given period of time, with the same amount of labour and capital, a larger amount of products, but in no wise a larger amount of exchange values. If by the use of the spinning-machine I can furnish twice as much yarn in an hour as before its invention – for instance, 100 pounds instead of 50 pounds – in the long run I receive back, in exchange for this 100 pounds no more commodities than I did before for 50; because the cost of production has fallen by 1/2, or because I can furnish double the product at the same cost.

I would love your opinion on its implications. It’s messing with my head a little. Let me know what I’m getting right and what I got wrong.

What I kind of understand is the following:

An improvement in the forces of production allows you to produce twice the amount of product in the same amount of time. The cost of production is halved, since you’re paying half the wages in relation to the amount of product. You have twice the amount of product, but since the cost of production is halved, the exchange value of the per unit of the new product was also halved, therefore, you have the same total exchange value.

Some of my questions are the following:

Why was the cost of production halved? I understand that the wages are technically halved, but that’s not the total cost of production. The exchange value of the raw materials and machinery is still the same.

If the capitalist’s profits are not increasing with this development of the productive forces, then what drives this evolution of the productive forces?

Doing a lot of research into the Proletkult, anybody got any good sources they know of from more orthodox Leninsit perspectives on them? Could be Lenin, Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Stalin, Radek, etc. anybody who from 1919-1926 was considered at any ppint a core part of the Leninist tradition.

I'm trying to find sources of them critiquing the ideas of people like Bogdanov and Platanov (yes I have read Materialism and Empirio-Criticism). But was struggling on finding critiques on the post revolution search for Proletarian Culture (Proletkult) specifically