Marx quoted

“Capital is said by a Quarterly Reviewer to fly turbulence and strife, and to be timid, which is very true; but this is very incompletely stating the question. Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent. will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent., positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both. Smuggling and the slave-trade have amply proved all that is here stated.” (T. J. Dunning, l. c., pp. 35, 36.)

This is from "Trades' unions and strikes: their philosophy and intention" book, which was published in 1860, while Das Kapital was published in 1867. What was the meaning of "Capital" in the quoted book if it's not Marx's definition of Capital?

Also, when Marx quoted this, did he want the reader to comprehend Capital as in his definition or the quoted author's definition?

I translated the quotes to english. I am wondering if these are indeed coincide with his views?

"Marx was against blind revolutionism. In the International he fought against those who were in favor of revolution as a matter of principle, against those who said that revolution must be carried out because it is necessary. The essence of Marx's thought is this: Revolution, to be successful, must come at the right moment; society cannot be transformed unless its economic development makes it ripe for change."

"Capitalism is ripe for change. The new system cannot be prepared "on order". Just as capitalism arose and developed out of feudalism, so the new system must arise and develop out of the old one, capitalism. We must look for the seeds of a new social system in the development of capitalist society itself."

Excerpt From Leo Huberman, Paul Sweezy

I've been repeatedly suspended and apparently now permanently banned (pending my appeal) because I have made good faith arguments that contradict the mods' personal views.

In this case, I raised concern about adults using children in advertising, regardless of the fact the video was amateur pro-Palestinian content. There were numerous jump cuts that clearly show how scripted it is that these children are saying, and that they don't believe this themselves.

Why do we let these mods control r/socialism as if they privately own the space?

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could recommend me any books or articles on passion (for a subject) in capitalism. I went down a rabbit hole yesterday and looked up some articles about how to know if you're passionate about a subject. It got me wondering since the article said stuff like "you want to do it all the time" or "you don't notice the time passing when you're doing what you're passionate about" or even "you forget to eat/sleep because of it". Does anyone else feel like it's convenient for the ruling class to feed the proletariat ideas like this? That if you're not willing to work yourself to the bone it's simply because you're not passionate enough. Don't get me wrong, I'm passionate about music and sometimes I don't notice time go by, and I do want to practice everyday and occasionally I'll even forget to eat for a bit (but I'll always eventually remember). But my passion is still work, even if I enjoy it. It tires me out, and I don't want to do it all the time, because it's exhausting. Am I reading too much into this? Does anyone agree/disagree with me or has any resources on this subject? Thanks in advance.

Hey all!

Sorry if this is a superficial question in the grand scheme of things, but I'd really appreciate some help.

So I've been reading Lukacs for some time now, namely the internet version available at the Marxist archive. However, I've finally decided to buy the actual book. Now, the print by MIT is ridiculously expensive. I simply refuse to pay that. However, the one by Verso Books and the one by Merlin Press I've read negative reviews about, mainly regarding errors in the text. Does anyone here have any experience with the latter two versions of the English translation? It's half the price of the MIT one, but I'm afraid I'll purchase a commodity with no use-value.

Thanks in advance ^^

I got banned for having commented in the 'democrat' subreddit. (First red flag).

In their ban text it stated that you can appeal if you are actually a communist/leftist that got banned by one of their filters. I replied by asking: can you give me a definition of those terms so i can decide if i want to be a part of this?

THEIR RESPONSE WAS: DO YOU SUPPORT CHINA? Screenshotted the interaction below;

I’m completely new to Marxism, a total blank page and trying to find a good jumping point for my study. I’ve read this sub’s posts for a few days now and it seems like the most common advice to read sources from Marx himself and not learn through secondary sources? So which book should I start with and which to further read after that?

Quoting Losurdo: "Marx, who knew phenomenology very well, resolves the difficulty by corresponding (in the Critique of the Gotha Program) the two different ways of declining 'equality' (which is always partial and limited) to two different states of development. of post-capitalist society: in the socialist stage, distribution according to an 'equal right', that is, reciprocating with equal measure the work provided by each unique and always different individual, produces an evident inequality in remuneration and income in this sense; the 'equal right' is nothing other than the 'right of inequality'. In the communist stage, the equal satisfaction of different needs also entails an inequality in the distribution of resources, but the enormous development of the productive forces, fully satisfying the needs of everyone, makes such inequality unimportant. In other words, in socialism, material equality is no longer possible;

But what about natural limitations? Well, let's imagine that there is a huge development of the productive forces, this will require the ever greater extraction of natural resources from nature, resources that today we see will soon end (such as oil) how can we deal with this?

Furthermore, I really have difficulty understanding how the market logic will completely overcome. Who will define what my “needs” are? Since items are no longer bought and sold but distributed, I imagine there will be a body to determine what everyone's "needs" are, but I really can't see that working

Wierd question, but is there any way I can use a B.A. in PolySci to just help people? I know that's vague, but I have a reason. I'm interested in PolySci as my main passion is reading political history and theory, and I wanted to be able to enhance that knowledge through a degree so that I could use it towards my home state of Mississippi. I want to find out what its problems are and help solve them with my passion, in other words. I thought I'd ask here to get the a unique perspective.

PS: I don't have a degree, I'm still in High School, so please excuse any of my ignorance on the subject lol.

Thanks!

This guy is a brazilian Instagram influencer who got famous by sharing stories of occultism and everything. Up till there everything okay. Suddenly he converted to christianism and became openly a N4z1. You didn't read wrong. Just look at the profile.

He has more than 365k followers. Please, report as hate speech.

https://www.instagram.com/mestre_vicky/profilecard/?igsh=eGUwaTJkaDRwemVq

Hi, I am living in the UK and have applied to join the RCP. I filled out the short form online and explained in very brief why I want to join them. They said that they would get back to me. This is the first time I am organising with any party, and was wondering what I should expect in the process. Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

Please help fundraise for my friend and his family who are still trapped in Gaza.

I am trying to help my friend, Yamen, fundraise for his family while they are still trapped in Gaza. His family is large, including many children, and both of his parents need urgent surgery.

In the link, you can read more about him and his family, but if you can, please consider donating or sharing. Anything helps, no matter how small.

They are getting so close to reaching their goal and being able to get to Egypt for safety!! His parents will be able to get the surgery they desperately need. He also has many young nieces and nephews struggling to find food and medicine to treat the illnesses that are rampant in Gaza. One of his nephews, an absolutely precious little boy named Khaled, was born during the war and has never known peace. Thank you to all who read this and consider helping ❤️ Gofundme

Any one know any leftist info dump.onions?

So I have been seeing a lot of chat rooms/ info dumps pop up in the .onion relms of the internet lately and I was wondering if any one knows of any leftist or at the very fucking least not alt white info dump sites or chatroom.onions because so far I have been able to find dick all that isn't HEAVY on the alt white side of things I have a fuckton of direct action, first aid, manufacturing, combat, manuals that I want to distribute but don't feel like redit is the place to do it

What does the word 'reactionary' specifically mean in Marxist terms? Is it the antonym of 'progressive', and why?

As in Henry Winston:

'In Marcuse’s view, the working class was hopelessly reactionary and contentedly integrated into the system – the upholders, not the gravediggers, of capitalism.'

I'm doing research for a themed party and I'm watching old propaganda to get some clips. I came across this one and it's kind of amazing that all the examples of how "Marx was wrong" got reversed in the 1980s under Reagan. "Workers aren't exploited because we have labor unions", "American peacefully transitions power", "Politicians come from the working class" etc

https://youtu.be/JNk9ZFqTt-Q?si=8toARlycCTqPEOKO

So, I've been involved in a couple orgs over the last few years and something I've noticed is a strong tendency towards forming cliques, particularly a 'leadership clique'. It seems, again just from what I've seen, like the handful of people willing to put the work in actually steering the group - understandably - end up forming stronger bonds with eachother than the people who just show up to stuff. But this tendency seems to turn in on itself over time and ends up passively excluding those on the "outside" who want to contribute more. Again from my experience (I doubt, or at least hope it's not a universal thing), I have a more focused area of interest (environment, public health, and the economic forces behind their enshittification) and have been offering to run events, discussions, presentations etc for the better part of the year and have been met with silence in each and every case - proposals not finding their way to the agenda, requests for feedback ignored or "we'll get to it later" for months until I give up on following up, etc. Not even a "no." And the question of "what can I do?" Is always answered with "just keep coming to stuff" while leadership makes it sound like they're drowning in the workload. As you can imagine, it's quite frustrating.

I'm not just here to complain, though. I have to go back home soon (I'm from a different country) and my hometown has no real orgs to speak of, so I'm planning on starting my own education-focused org. I want to avoid this clique-ism at all costs - it's demotivating, counterproductive, and contributes to burnout among the usual suspects - but am at a loss for active measures to take against. Any thoughts?

So i had a discusion with some anarchist online about rationality, and they started to put some heavy front on me, saying that the state no matter what the only thing that does is systematic genocide, and that no instance of welfare actually exist.

So i came to this sub to ask if i could join in and ask some questions from time to time?

I want to finally get to reading communist manifesto, but I'm a non-native english speaker. I do think my english is good as I have 0 problem talking in english with friends, but it's a bit different when it comes to more "professional" language, esp in the area I'm not knowledgeable in. I'm a newbie Marxist and only been interested in politics for a year, and it's mainly just following online content creators. My native language is polish, and I was wondering what was your choice in which language you read Marx in?

Apologies if this isn't appropriate to the server, but when I am in discussion with liberals or "fiscal conservatives", people who like Orwell, Rand, or Hobbes, whatever my opponent may be, I feel like obvious things to me make me feel like I am an intellectual superior to others who don't think like me and that's not a mindset I want to create. For example, there is an idea that all human beings are selfish and this goes on to inspire earlier century Hobbes's Leviathan (absolute authority) and Rand's Objectivist philosophy and her favor for laissez faire capitalism. Instead of seeing this sense of selfishness coming back to history, the development of their culture and the beliefs that their governments have passed down onto them and so on. But it is infuriating to try and reason with these people because they get to cancel your argument out on the basis that I'm a commie.

I’ve been furthering my understanding of labor theory of value, and I think I’ve gotten a good grasp on it for physical products. There’s an objective material cost, manufacturing, transport cost, etc etc. But how can you apply LTV for services? For example, a therapist that is employed by a clinic. It is inherent that he is having the surplus value extracted from him, otherwise the clinic wouldn’t have profits and would go bankrupt, but how do you calculate the value of a therapy session? If the therapist generates 50 dollars of “value” per 8 hour day, but gets paid only for the first 4 hours, how did the clinic calculate the total value of his work day for a completely abstract service? What parameters were involved? Other examples could be teachers, doctors, surgeons, garbage men, etc. All these services don’t actually produce physical objects, so how do you figure out their labor value? Thanks for reading.

I'm not American. This election doesn't really have any immediate effects on me personally ( no family really affected as far as I know).

Just wanted to know if voting for the lesser of two evils is possible position to be in given the fact that, in the short term, it helps protect the rights of some of the marginalised and somewhat improves the working class - increase of the minimum wage to 15 dollars/hr for instance. I'm well aware of the Harris campaign's views on gaza and Israel.

I think I ask this question cause I do worry about the conditions there. Even if I was a citizen I'm not buying the "vote blue no matter what" idea. I think I'm just conflicted and scared of what a Trump administration could potentially do to people.

I'm pretty green when it comes to theory about things and I can see how this post can feel very lib. So I'd like to be educated and helped out about the position

I think every new Marxist goes through a phase where Marxism sort of becomes their personality, and it's all they talk about and think about. I've seen people discuss that phenomenon at length.

I'm now a few years into being a Marxist and while I've since become accustomed to not letting it dominate my identity, what I have seen discussed less often is that once that initial obsession wears off, there's a pervasive sense of social isolation that doesn't wear off. Not isolated in a literal sense, as I have many friends, am sociable, relate well to my peers, etc. But there is always a sense that everyone else is "living in the matrix" so to speak, and worse yet, you know you as an individual can't really do anything to shake people out of it. That's more the purview of organizations. And if you try as an individual, you'll often come off as crazy if you go too deep into things too soon, and have to talk to people like children, beginning with the least controversial positions that we take as Marxists. "Hiding your power level," as many reactionaries like to put it.

So, I can speak to people and be as sociable as I ever was before becoming a Marxist, but in the back of my mind there is always a looming sense that I am vastly disconnected from the way everyone else in my immediate surroundings sees the world. At best it's socially isolating, at worst it can even lead to feelings of superiority, misanthropy, and contempt. Rationally, I know better than to feel those latter feelings, but sometimes when I'm just frustrated with the state of the world it's hard not to feel that as capital grows ever more moribund that people in the imperial core will ultimately get what they deserve one way or another.

I'm not necessarily asking people here how to deal with those feelings, just thought people might find value in contributing to this discussion, whether to share advice for dealing with feelings or just commiserating in general.

Can someone explain the concept of alienation of labor in Marxism? From what I understand, alienation is the worker's disconnection from the product of their labor and the lack of satisfaction with their work. My question is: how can we overcome this alienation in the 21st century, especially with all the technological advancements and new forms of labor? How could this be practically achieved today?

If you lack the power to do the revolution itself, or anyhow else fight for the proletariat, how could you possibly "accelerate capitalism" more than the ruling class already does by naturally following their interests?

Sounds like a buzzword, made up by counter-revolutionary opportunism, or those who think that reforms can't be rolled back by the ruling class as easily as they're implemented.

Hello. I'm reading my first books and I'm at Engels' Origin of the family, property and the State.

So E is describing the iroquois society, the absence of slavery, mass trade, subjugation of fellow Nations. And I think this is credited on the Americas lack of pack animals and crop products. Without oxen to level fields to plant with wheat, native americans had to build an egalitarian, solidarity-based society to level just patches of land to plant maize by hand. Without mighty rivers like the Eufrates to irrigate said fields, no excess production could be raised to trade and begin the accumulation of wealth that culminates on slavery, misogyny and private property.

But

Two ideas pop into my head:

• this sounds like the myth of the good indian, which is the romantic (that is, belonging to Rousseau's Romanticism movement) notion that civilization corrupted the pure and idyllic native americans Disney's Pocahontas-like lifestyle of diving into waterfalls and listening to the wind. Native americans did have wars among themselves and were greedy just like any other human group.
• there were slaves in the precolumbian Americas. But maybe not among the iroquois, but the mexicas of Mesoamerica.

Then it hit me: this book is from 1884. Maybe by E's time knowledge about the ancient mexicas (aztecs) was not as readily available as today.

Tho I'm no expert in mexica history, as far as I understand there were plenty of city-states in Mesoamerica. Three of them, Tenochtitlán, Texcoco and Tlacopán joined together to squash their neighbors. They demanded hostages and human tributes as slaves and as human sacrifices. The notion that the native americans lacked cattle and compensated the missing protein with cannibalism through human sacrifice has been around, with no conclusive agreement but it does explain their fixation with heart ripping. Also, the wonderous Venice-like floating city of Tenochtitlán that was on the process of desalination of an entire lagoon to make their artificially-made garden-like pads produce three or four harvests in a single year checks the "accumulation of wealth" box.

My point being, the mexicas do fit in E's analysis like a glove: they were the missing link between the egalitarian iroquois and the slaving old-worlders. Native americans + agricultural excedent = accumulation of wealth = warmongering for slaves = imperialism/subjugation of neighbors.

And it goes further. When the europeans came, the mexicas' vassals turned on them. Spaniards did not conquer America: native americans conquered America. The Tlaxcala people and their own league carried the spaniards around. By the mexicas cruelty against their neighnors, their common culture unraveled in a few centuries of european influence. So, after imperialism comes societal colapse.

I'm rather ignorant when it comes to the guatemalan Maya. But it seems they were egalitarian like the iroquois and that explains how both groups still exist against all odds.

"... ‘Ultra-authoritarianism and Capital are by no means incompatible: internment camps and franchise coffee bars co-exist.’1 Today, we can see clear examples. The various factions of the Starbucks-loving US and German ruling classes are fully committed to what they call the “defence of Israel”. This commitment would seem reasonable if it was not for Gazan children being among those targetted2, starved, crushed, burned and blown to bits3 by US and German weapons on the other side of the Israeli wall that imprisons them..." https://proletarianperspective.wordpress.com/2024/10/22/western-capitalism-and-israel-a-class-perspective/

A friend of mine is studying psychology and will soon become a therapist. I asked him whether he plans to open his own practice or work at a clinic. He said he prefers to open his own practice because, at a clinic, the clinic would take a portion of his earnings. For example, if a therapy session costs 200 EUR, as a self-employed therapist, he would keep the entire 200 EUR. However, if he worked at a private clinic, the clinic might take 50%, leaving him with only 100 EUR, paid indirectly through his salary.

At that moment, I pointed out that this principle applies broadly under capitalism, whenever there’s a choice between being self-employed and working for a private company. When you're self-employed, you keep all the value you produce. But when you're employed by a company, a portion of the value you create is taken by the CEO or shareholders, which Marx referred to as "surplus-value."

The psychotherapist example is particularly useful for illustrating surplus-value extraction for two reasons. First, becoming a therapist requires minimal capital—aside from perhaps renting a space for your practice—so many therapists end up being self-employed. Second, it’s easy to calculate the value a therapist generates because their work isn’t tied to any pre-existing infrastructure. If a therapy session costs 200 EUR, the therapist directly generates 200 EUR of value in that session.

To clarify this further, let’s consider my situation. I work as a software engineer, and I frequently handle change requests that my company bills at certain rates. Sometimes, I make changes that are invoiced at 1,000 EUR, but that doesn’t mean I personally generate 1,000 EUR of value in that moment. The work I do relies on a pre-existing software infrastructure that was developed before I even joined the company. For me to make a change worth 1,000 EUR, the software itself needs to exist in a specific state beforehand. This makes it difficult to measure exactly how much value I’m producing as a software engineer, since my work builds on something that was already there. In contrast, a therapist’s work is much easier to quantify, which is why I believe the example of the psychotherapist is the simplest way to explain how capitalism works to someone unfamiliar with Marxist theory.

To flesh out my answer if you go on any subreddits such as /r/Economics , /r/askeconomics, (maybe) /r/askhistorians the common refrain is Marxism is bunk, discredited, useless ad naseum.

But there are major economists who are Marxist such as Richard Wolff (who won a Nobel prize in Economics). Or who were broadly influenced by it.

It’s obvious some of the current feeling is due to decades of Cold War thinking but why is there still such hugely partisan thinking around it when you consider it is dead and buried as a potent historical force? There’s no chance of another USSR. Or for communism making a recurrence.

I've heard several times that Karl Marx did not believe in simple definitions, but I'm struggling to find any source on this or understand exactly what that means.

From my understanding, Marx believed in describing processes, which inherently reveal a contradictory nature to them. Would rejecting definitions then mean asserting that one cannot holistically reveal the undergirding processes and contradictions within something through a simple sentence or two?

Hi! I identify as marxist, but have some trouble with the hammer and sickle symbol, specifically because I know that USSR had some very cruel things they did and generally the hammer and sickle symbol is not viewed in a positive light in my country - Poland. My best friend who's just identifies as leftist but no specific ideology, has part of her family living in Belarus and her father travels all across europe including many eastern european countries, he met hundreds of people who first-hand described how the USSR times weren't really good and because of that, she is 100% confident that hammer and sickle shouldn't be used anymore as the symbol now is tainted with trauma of people who suffered because of Stalin. I'm unsure what to do, really, I feel a bit uneducated about USSR itself but I do know the suffering of many people was real. In my mind it's just communism being a great thing but execution of it in USSR being unfortunate. I can't really argue with my friend much about it as it's her generational trauma influencing it all. I think the hammer and sickle symbol is visually great but I just kind of wish there was a specifically marxist symbol?

Tldr: Is there any marxist symbol out there that's actually being used, or any alternative to the hammer and sickle one? I also welcome opinions why despite the trauma and horrible actions of the USSR, why the hammer and sickle is still valid to be used?