Das Kapital

Yes, or more simply put: any time Marx uses the term value without putting use- in front of it, he is always talking about exchange value, but simply omits it for the sake of brevity. This goes for all other concepts of his featuring the term: (exchange) value form, the the law of (exchange) value or the abolition of (exchange) value, et cetera.

thank you so much actually this helps a lot, that was throwing me off a lot.

or actually try to read some of the shit he wrote instead of avoiding it like satan from the cross. I bet you haven't even read any of his books to know enough to say anything against them.

Stalin's critique of anarchism is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. Literally "You aren't being dialectical, comrade"

Stalin was a meme tier thinker.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQzsQMPHKEXHH-WeAA7cQKyRFi3epYLNj

If you're into more audiovisual medium, here's a playlist of Richard Wolff's intro to marxian economics.

Also try reading E. Mandel's Intro to Marxist Economic Theory

marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/intromet/

Well anarchists's critique of marxism is just "hurr durr we don't like the state" so i don't see the problem, Stalin was just proving them wrong.

...

Harry Cleaver's "Reading Capital Politically" is the best introduction I've read so far. It's an autonomist Marxist reading of capital:

libcom.org/library/reading-capital-politically-cleaver

There are plenty of good critiques of anarchism. Critiques I happen to agree with. Stalin's critique on the other hand was a big nothing wrapped in Marxilalia.

No problem. Also for price, to put it simply, price is the nominal value of a commodity, and as such it does not reflect its real value.

Anarchism indeed is poor, but Stalin's "critiques" are worthless. Even Trotsky did a better job.

The only bigger pseudo-authority on Marx after Harvey. What I said about Harvey in Re: value is already many more times an issue with Wolff, but even worse is his advocacy of democratized capital as what Marx meant with "socialism" (for both of these, read his Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism and weep). The term "Marxian economics" or characterizing Marx as an economist/Marxism as a type of economism is also probIematic because Marx's philosophy is explicitly all-encompassing rather than purely economic, even going as far as to reject economics/political economy (remember what Capital is subtitled as) explicitly as an irreparably myopic understanding of things.

Again I couldn't give a shit less if Wolff or anyone else spreaded their stillborn and irrelevant ideas on their own, but not when they speaks through a supposedly faithful-to-Marx horn. Why can't they just suck up to anarchism for their creds like Graeber, Schweickaert and other coop clowns do? At least there would be harmony in their inspirations their advocacy.

I have yet to check out Mandel but a decent Marxhead who used to post here frequently mentioned him so I'll hold my judgement for now.

That's far from their critique. Knowingly misrepresenting anarchism (I doubt you are doing it knowingly considering what you just said) no matter the reason, is pathetic.

I have been recommended Reading Capital, For Marx, both of them by Althusser, then Capital. Of course you need a background on political economy, so read Wage Labour and Capital then Value, Price and Profit.

My advise: take your time reading and don't think you will understand everything 100% and be a specialist on your first read of the book. Do not pressure yourself. I just finished volume I (took 3 months) a few days ago. With time and some effort you will finish it too.

Yeah, Harvay has its problems. I used him on my first reading of Capital. He was good for a basic understanding, but his lack of 'motivation' with the law of value/labor theory sometimes annoys me.

Also, another critique of Harvey:thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/david-harvey-marxs-method-and-the-enigma-of-surplus/

If you go from understanding the naturalistic mechanisms of value transfer between humans to Capital, you'll end up with a lot of 'HEY WAIT THATS BULLSHIT' and you're not wrong. Because of this you ought to do as suggests. You see…In order to properly 🍀🍀🍀understand🍀🍀🍀 you have to be led through this series of goy chutes which each will mangle your perspective of humanity such that you can be properly 'educated' in marxian thinking.

well they weren't being dialectical were they

Tell me more about how you could solve differential equations as a child before being taught how to sum.

do u want to read it as a economics text or a philosophy text?