Gommunism

Hey leftypol I'm a huge Trump supporter but I feel like expanding my knowledge so I decided to study and understand Marxism. Does anybody recommend any good Marxist literature?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6oQ02sTO6PM
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM
youtube.com/watch?v=T9Whccunka4
youtube.com/watch?v=ysZC0JOYYWw
youtube.com/watch?v=HMUuw_K-ky0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

This 3 hour video of Academic Agent getting BTFOd by Jack is a good start on the Labour Theory of Value
youtube.com/watch?v=6oQ02sTO6PM

read wage labour and capital, it's very short

Here is a short Introductory work.
Are you looking for something in particular about Marxism? Lenght, economics, politics, phylosophy?

...

/thread

If you're serious and willing to put in some time, this is a decent schedule to get you up to speed on the main points.
These two sources will give you some understanding of the materialist conception of history and how socialists tend to understand the world and how it changes.
It's a very short sort of prototype of the thoughts Marx would expand on in his magnum opus: "Capital: Critique of Political Economy". Which should be the next thing you read if you wanna move past a novice's understanding.

sorry i just thought the video was good

It is pretty funny I'll admit, but I don't think it's a good starting point for OP.

Why let any old Trump supporter eat at our table?

OP, you're an adult (I hope), so you can read the literature, which isn't hard to find since we don't hide our ideas in secret, occult imageboards, forums, and digital only pdfs, and hide when challenged like your friends at that rally, but, belonging to the Enlightenment, say the truth in the open, being strong and defensible enough to be appreciated by every sensible human being.

What gave you the idea that the phrase was taken literally?

The part where it seems to have been taken literally.

If you want to learn about an actually-scientific, non-Marxist variety of communism, read Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A Factor Of Evolution" and "The Conquest Of Bread". Marx isn't everything to communism - there's also anarcho-communism, which isn't related to his pseudoscience. Kropotkin's work contributed to real science (contributed to evolutionary biology and geography, founded sociobiology), unlike Marx's (contributed to continental philosophy and economics and historiography, founded sociology and critical theory).
Plus, the anarchist predictions about Marxism's totalitarian nature all came true (although Lenin was a massive deviation from Marx and cannot be considered a meaningful continuation of his thought).

Eat a dick.

Wew lad get that stick out of your ass.

How can one man be this assmad, ascribing to a man the interpretations other make of him?

Wew lad…

The Soul of Man under Socialism from Oscar Wilde is a nice short read. It argues that socialism actually makes true individualism possible, while capitalist societies don't. It's also critical of charity, arguing that it obfuscates the true horrors of the system. Just like the worst slave owners were the ones that treated their slaves well, because it made people blind to the unfairness of the whole idea of slavery.

By the way, by private property we mean factories, mines, etc. Not your toothbrush or other personal belongings.

marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

Maybe the sticky created exactly for this would help.

Likewise, here's a video series that lays it out more basically as well as the law of value.
youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM

...

Here's some introductory talks about Marxism by Professor Richard Wolff

youtube.com/watch?v=T9Whccunka4

its called a book, son

Kropotkin was a scientist and an anarchist, that doesnt mean anarchism is 'more scientific' than marxism. supreme logical fallacy.

Second of all Marx developed the LTV/political economy way more than anarchists. I don't think they are mutually exclusive

That said, there is a dangerous tendency among ML's and leftcoms who treat Marxism as a hard science instead of a soft one. Dialectical Materialism as a hard science is a one way path to the big othering of history, and then to incredible despotism.

I think you are confused, Marxists never said dialectical materialism was a hard science like physics or chemistry, its more like a social science. In USSR Marxism was transformed into stilted dogma, rather than an intellectual and political tradition.
eh, not really. The factors that lead to despotism were complex and not really reducible to any particular view of dialectics, this is wrongheaded essentialism

I don't deny the factors were complex, but if it was impossible for dialectical materialism to be seen as such deification of history and progress, then things would have turned out very differently in the USSR without that sort of ideological cover. What is truly foolish, is to free marx of all responsibility for different interpretations of his ideas.

Read Proudhon.

Learn about market-socialism and mutualism, greatest feasible economic system ever conceived.

wow rude

agree, but I'm not so convinced USSR would have turned out significantly different with different philosophy, alot of their problems were result of conditions beyond their control such as isolation/encirclement and underdevelopment

...

...

some of it was due to stubbornness about Marxist dogma as well. Marx and engels clearly outlined centralization of production, and ending the anarchy of production as key parts needed for socialism. The collectivization of agriculture was a key step that everyone expected stalin to undertake. It turned out to be catastrophic when directly forced by the soviet government. This preference for centralized production also caused many inefficiencies when it came to consumer goods, spare parts, and maintenance. Soviet economists also constantly struggled with how prices were supposed to work in socialism and whether the LTV still applied to them.

Ironically enough, at least when it came to centralization of agriculture, the Nixon administration accomplished basically the same thing in the US without all the bloodshed. Marx also spoke about how this process of socialization of production in general would be done by capitalism and the law of value.

Should classical liberal thinkers be held responsible for the harm caused by the liberal capitalist republican order we have now? I would say no. They had no way of predicting what would ensue when their ideas were mixed with advanced technology and industrialization (and post-industrialization), and the result was clearly not they hoped would happen.

I fully, 100% blame John Locke for the autism that is the american political system/culture.

If I open a door and someone is standing directly behind it, and I accidentally crack their skull open with it, it's still my responsibility even if I couldn't see it coming. This is also the idea behind manslaughter. Ultimately, intent is not what counts, what happens is what counts.

Y E S

guys what the fuck is wrong with this thread, it's in like mobile view but it's only for this thread
what the fuck did i press

it's your own display, it's normal for me.

lol

holy shit a leftcom poster is right for once
Yes, the USSR had many problems but you can't blame it all on Marx any more than you can blame jesus for the inquisition

Pietas, religion, was very much to blame for the inquisition, and thus, even jesus had a part in it.

On a greater level, what could be good without an evil to oppose and test it? This is the logic that even the catholics would agree to. God created satan, and he is responsible for all evil with the creation of free will, even if the cosmic accounting book will inevitably balance itself out.

Tell me then, oh wise leftcom, why do anarchists fail to even attempt to create a new society if not for Proudhon's pacifism and Bakunin's distaste for the state? Are they not responsible for the impotence of anarkiddies?

Then go as far back and blame nature for all that exists, absolving anyone of evil. Otherwise, you're going to have to adopt degrees of evil. But meaning is determined in the locus of the Other, not by one. One cannot account for the totality of beings in a world, ever.

Are we not a part of nature, user? Do we not too share its burden for the present state of things?

Being is in of itself a totality, I am all that touches me, that sways me. Perhaps I cannot account for all that I am, but it matters not, we remain responsible whether we are held accountable or not. this is just a fact, not a greater moral burden unless you want it to be.

DELETE THIS

nigga I made that fucking oc you're posting. No jesus would not have tortured people, neither would God, by his own will, kill millions of jews in the holocaust or murder people, or rape people. That's not the point.

What I'm trying to do is to show you that to blame people for what happens after others have come and taken up their words is ridiculous. But fuck this, I'm going to study the nature of evil later.

Kropotkin explicitly derived his anarchist philosophy from his scientific findings in Siberia and connected his evolutionary ethics, scientific findings, and political theories via a development of Epicurus's approach (he was exposed to this by Guyau's writings) and an application of a mechanistic, empirical materialism to society.
Furthermore, I didn't claim that all anarchism was as scientific. Marx and Proudhon are very similar (and vulnerable to the same criticism, and while Bakunin was very materialist in examining the history of various human communities and the history of people collaborating when not dominated (part of why Kropotkin gravitated towards anarchism in the first place), he also has a lot of idealist, unscientific stuff mixed in.
There is a thermodynamic underpinning to the LTV's origin with Smith (he wrote at a time when physics was proceeding at a great pace at his home university of Glasgow and was influenced by this), but beyond the LTV's further investigation and improvement by biophysics and sociobiological forays into industrial engineering, architecture, and other aspects of how our social world is mediated by interactions with physical objects, I strongly doubt that economics can ever be a science because datasets of market interactions are nonlinear, chaotic, and complex. The closest Marx comes to escaping this trap is with his Fragment On Machines. Cockshott's econophysics are a possible way in, although the nonlinearity of any sort of economics dealing with money instead of in-kind units makes me skeptical of its potential.
If you could gather global data on what material objects are transferred from person to person and to and by whom services are rendered, then you could go from what we know about biology and physiology already to formulate and test hypotheses.

- Bakunin
- Bakunin
- Bakunin
- Bakunin
For all his flaws as a person and a thinker, the core of his thought on state and capital was solid. This is intellectually disingenuous of you.

That's ridiculous. Prior to the Paris Commune and before later becoming more scientifically inclined in his Ethnological Notebooks (at which point, many of his propositions such as those in the letter to Vera Zasulich began to resemble those of Kropotkin). Prior to that, he was entirely supportive of what would have amounted to a USA with a labor note economy and engineered-managed planning, which would have been little more than a facelift of the Leninist disaster. Bureaucratic functionaries would have captured power at every level of the executive because law would have the forces of the state (police, military) protect them and the whole thing would collapse.
Certainly, Lenin's didactism (in common with Kautsky, Luxemburg, and Bernstein) was a massive misinterpretation, but the Marx known and beloved by most was his own thing. Ironically, it's after the time at which Althusser "found" the "epistemological break" (which he used to justify the authoritarian Leninist party by head-on dismissing most of what Marx said instead of rewriting it like other Leninists) that Marx became more libertarian. Early Marx was as authoritarian as midlife Marx - his ideas were just dressed up in Jacobin ideals and shibboleths which he hadn't yet demolished.

Blame isn't quite the same as responsibility. Much like how Marx said men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please, you can twist people's words, but you cannot twist them as you please. There are limits of credulity. A person's particular thought lends itself towards certain ideological frameworks.

wtf i love huge trump supporters now

This lecture by Richard Wolff is a great introduction.

Socialism For Dummies part 1
youtube.com/watch?v=ysZC0JOYYWw
Part 2
youtube.com/watch?v=HMUuw_K-ky0

these posts reek of positivism

god killed millions in the bible, it's canon mate.

Leninism is far more positivist than Kropotkin's anarcho-communism, what with the "empirio-criticism" Frankenstein quasi-Marxism. I explicitly stated in the first post that the answer to the problems posed by Hume's empiricism lies in neuroscience, not in language. That rules out "positivism" as a descriptor. Are you retarded or just spewing words you don't know the meaning of?

What kind of definition are you using for positivism?
Don't know, we'll just have to wait for paradigmatic neuroscience to reveal the fundamental truth about that.

The only one. Positivism is a development of the empiricist project which seeks to extend what Hume identified as the always-true a priori statement into being able to predict the a posteriori (so as to avoid the problem of induction), while maintaining the behaviorist black box conception of the brain. Positivism started with Comte, who proposed that we could, from sensory input run through logic and reason, derive certain knowledge about the world. This was later developed further through the work of logicians and mathematicians such as Frege and Whitehead and Boolos and Russell, among others, whose project was to develop a purely logical, unambiguous language and reduce everything to mathematical axioms. This total axiomatization is necessary for the a priori to be able to start functioning in place of induction from the a posteriori. This fell apart when Godel published his incompleteness theorems and when Noam Chomsky BTFO'd behaviorism (which also opened up a new path).
Once we understand the brain and develop the neural logic (and neural computer code) which we'll need for neuromorphic computing anyways, however, we'll be able to circumvent these problems of positivism (and language altogether) entirely while also addressing what Kant (and everyone influenced by his response to Hume) got right and wrong.
Touche.

That is a good encyclopedic answer, but not the dictionary definition of positivism; you've gone and argued against a far far more developed claim with its own assumptions than I ever intended to make. Strictly speaking positivism is the belief in attaining certain knowledge through rigorous empirical science, what you wrote of Comte.
Is this a sarcastic touché or a genuine one? If it is genuine you definitely are a positivist.

We want to kill all the white men, impregnate your women, and then force them to share a single toothbrush.
We're coming bucko.

Empiricism is empiricism, which is what you described. Positivism isn't the only 19th-20th century variety of empiricism. There's also pragmatism and falsificationism, for example.
Sarcastic.

No, the difference between the two is that positivsm claims that empirical methods can lead to certain knowledge, empiricism doesn't make such strong claims. For example solipsism of the empirical tradition opposes any fundamental truthfulness of empirical knowledge outside of it being experienced.

Every empiricist since Hume has made it their project to overcome Hume's solipsism.

>>>/reddit/

I have no idea why you think they are relevant here, the fact of the matter is that empiricism claims that experience is the way or at least the primary way of gaining knowledge, while positivism claims that empirical methodology allows us to reach certain knowledge. Do you understand the difference between the two statements?
Hume was solipsist? That's news to me.

They both are non-positivist and take separate routes to claim that you can reach certain knowledge through empirical methods. Ergo, the claim that positivism can be defined by the statement "positivism claims that empirical methods can lead to certain knowledge" because those characteristics are exclusive to it is false. Whether it achieved those aims at a point or not, this search for certain knowledge has always been characteristic of the empiricist project in all its manifestations, from Locke and beyond.
Hume noted that we never actually see cause and effect, rather just independent events that are constantly conjoined together. The mere fact that something fell when I dropped it in earlier instances does not require that the next time I drop something it too will fall. Thus, Hume concluded that we have no reason to believe in causation. If you have no reason to believe in causation, then you have no reason to believe your perceptions are caused by an independent world. The only thing which you cannot doubt is your own existence, which is the basis of solipsism. Hence, once Kant's project was at last defeated in its structuralist form, all philosophy regressed to Humean solipsism and we arrive at poststructuralism and the shallow affirmationist consensus of modern philosophy (Latour, Badiou), plus a few scattered efforts to reweaponize critique (Land, Wark) or wordplay one's way out of PoMo critiques of Kant's project (Bhaskar, Brassier) in the less-known corners.