[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ashleyj / quests / s / strek / tacos / vg / vichan ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

September 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1428936027574.jpg (235.44 KB, 951x659, 951:659, enver_hoxha_republic_decla….jpg)


Hello, I am the new leader of /marx/.

I will continue the status quo: this board is for those who identify as Marxist-Leninist in some form, whether they uphold or otherwise identify with the Stalin-era USSR, the post-Stalin era, China under Mao, Albania under Hoxha, Cuba, the DPRK or whatever. Non-MLs are allowed to ask questions and the like.

I have a forum with a political forum area for registered users (although the forum itself is for forum games users think up and run.) If you want to get in private contact with me via PM, or if you just want to use the political forum area for whatever, feel free: http://eregime.org/index.php?act=idx

78 posts and 34 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at




File: 361ea4d25726d0c⋯.jpg (321.56 KB, 493x622, 493:622, Enver and Nexhmije Hoxha i….jpg)


Ask questions about Albania and/or Enver Hoxha here.

158 posts and 77 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I assume by "Tito and Hoxha Soviets" you mean what would a USSR somehow led by Titoists or "Stalinists" do.

Tito supported Dubček. Hoxha and Mao both denounced Dubček as a revisionist but blamed his rise on the supposed revisionism of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the CPSU.

But at the end of the day Tito, Hoxha and Mao (as well as Ceaușescu) all condemned the Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia using the essentially nationalist argument that it "violated Czechoslovakia's sovereignty."



Sorry I meant what Tito and Hoxha would preferred Soviets to do in response to Prague Spring? Nothing?



Correct. As I said, Tito supported Dubček while Hoxha took the position that the "genuine Czechoslovak Marxist-Leninists" or whatever should overthrow both the Novotný and Dubček "revisionists."


What was Enver Hoxha like as a person?



Those who were on his good side knew him as a fairly intelligent and cordial person. Those who were on his bad side knew him as stubborn and someone who never forgot any perceived slight against him even decades later.

Chapter 11 of O'Donnell's "A Coming of Age" discusses Hoxha's personality: https://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/a-coming-of-age.pdf

Here's a bit from Hoxha's memoirs, years after WWII when he was visiting a farm. A "wrinkled and ragged" employee came up to him, and it turned out to be a former representative of the exploiting classes.

>He held out his hand to me and greeted me saying:

>"How are you, Mr. Enver?"

>I raised my head to look at him, because the word "Mr." in the mouth of a peasant, when they always called one another "comrade", attracted my attention. And who did I see? Sejfi Vllamasi! He had become a swineherd.

>"Despite all you have done," I said to him, "the Party of communists did not leave you without a job and you are earning your bread with the sweat of your brow for the first time in your life."

>"As you say, Mr. Enver, but now I'm an old man."

>"You have got older, that's the law of nature, but what can you do, you have to eat and in order to eat you must work."

>"That is so, Mr. Enver," said Sejfi, "but could the government possibly give me a pension?"

>"Pension, why? Because you have never worked, or because you have been in the fascist 'Council of state' [set up by Italy upon invading Albania in 1939], or because you have never done a patriotic deed? In the time of Noli's GovPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: 9d2b79227645d21⋯.jpg (236.86 KB, 646x839, 646:839, Labor Defender June 1929.jpg)


Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/5721.html

As the title says. I figure a general "ask me questions" thread is good. Can be questions about socialism, US history, the Marxist position on religion, or whatever else.

737 posts and 70 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Socialism is workers ownership of means of production and aim of socialist economy is to fulfill society's needs rather than profit. Capitalism has business schools,mba's etc...What education system sistem should teach children and adults to run means of production? Is there a theory on it?

Did any socialist states ran socialist co-op education?


Socialism means workers ownership of means of production, aim of socialist economy is to fulfill society's needs rather than pursuit of profit. Capitalism provides business schools,mba's etc...How to achieve education system that should teach children and adults to run means of production? Is there a theory on it? Did any socialist states ran socialist co-op education?



>What education system sistem should teach children and adults to run means of production? Is there a theory on it?

The USSR and friends had what was known as polytechnical education, where students would not only be taken to factories to learn how things work, but had classes where they'd use tools and other equipment.

Polytechnical education reached its height under Khrushchev, but many students considered it a distraction from their studies, and there were workers who complained of having to sacrifice worktime to teach disinterested kids and teenagers.


Is Ba'athism left-wing and socialist ideology?



Arab socialism in general (of which Ba'athism is a variant) is a petty-bourgeois ideology. It certainly isn't socialist in the sense Marxists understand the term.

As to whether it's left-wing, that depends. Ba'athist ideology evolved over time, and diverged somewhat in Syria and Iraq. It's fair to say that there were left-wing members of the Ba'ath (who regarded class struggle as an important part of the party's efforts and advocated alliance with the communists), and right-wing members (who repressed communists and denied class struggle existed or mattered much in Arab society.)

Saddam was an example of the right-wing of Ba'athism. Hafez al-Assad was closer to the left-wing, although in practice Ba'athist ideology contained the same petty-bourgeois vacillations in either case (e.g. Syria joining the Gulf War coalition against Iraq.)

File: 1d80622b86f1fd6⋯.jpg (117.65 KB, 382x338, 191:169, Lenin reading.jpg)


If you have a question about Soviet history or about specific policies enacted in the USSR, feel free to ask them here.

652 posts and 211 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 8b528421b7c8906⋯.png (108.42 KB, 452x1544, 113:386, Civil war.png)

What is the true story about famine of 1920's?

Is it true that Soviets received food aid from US, but then it stopped after it was revealed that Soviets are exporting grain?



To quote Volume 1 of Carr's "The Bolshevik Revolution," pp. 177-178:

>At the end of June 1921 news of the catastrophic famine threatening the eastern provinces of European Russia began to reach Moscow; and a group of public men and intellectuals approached the Soviet authorities with proposals for an appeal to foreign countries for help. The magnitude of the impending disaster and the belief that a conciliatory gesture would favourably impress foreign opinion made the Soviet Government amenable to the project. A decree of July 21, 1921, set up an All-Russian Committee for Aid to the Hungry. These included. . . two former ministers of the Provisional Government, Kishkin and Prokopovich, some prominent Kadets and a large number of non-party intellectuals. It was to draw funds both from voluntary contributions and from a state subsidy, to collect supplies both in Russia and abroad, and to see to their distribution.

>Such a committee was unique in the history of the Soviet regime, and the difficulties inherent in it were quickly revealed. The émigré Russian press hailed the step as proof that the Soviet regime was in desperate straits and no longer able to maintain itself without bourgeois support; the British representative, newly arrived in Moscow, entered into relations with the committee over the head of the Soviet Government; and foreign governments showed an obvious inclination to treat it as an alternative government which might succeed to power once the Soviet regime was overthrown. The committee in fact did little but collect information and make publicity at home and abroad. On August 20, 1921, the Soviet Government concluded an agreement with Hoover's American Relief Administration (ARA) for the organization of famine relief. This success made the continued existence of the committee, from the Soviet point of view, not only superfluous, but dangerous; for ARA clearly hoped to use the relief programme to weaken the position of the Soviet Government and would seek as far as possible to deal with the predominantly bourgeois committee rather than with the Bolshevik authorities.

Hoover had made large inPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at



>As I imagined it's propaganda?

Yeah I checked on Wikipedia, saw the supposed source, and edited my post to include what the source actually says.

>How big was their aid?

According to the aforementioned Soviet work ("Russia and the United States," p. 70):

>Although the dark political aspects of the activity of the ARA in Russia should not be disregarded, they are less important than the fact that assistance was rendered to the starving population of our country. The value of the goods sent to Russia through the ARA amounted to $62,000,000, including transportation costs. Of this sum, $14,000,000 was covered by the Soviet government. It must be noted that even the United States government, which did not recognize the RSFSR, appropriated $20,000,000 and turned his sum over to the ARA. When the activity of the American services working for famine relief in Russia was at its height (August 1922) as many as 10,000,000 people were involved. The Soviet People and the Soviet government reacted to this assistance with gratitude.

>Why thought support Asiatic Russia?

The same reason the ARA got involved in Hungary, Poland, etc.: reactionary political considerations (make the US out to be the great savior, support counter-revolutionary forces) mixed with the belief that one was doing good humanitarian work regardless of politics.

Post last edited at



To sum up, the famine was caused by civil war, including American intervention. Americans offered help for three reasons, aid counter-revolution,make propaganda and certain people simply wanted to do good. Lenin's government tried to do all they could to relief the famine, and accepted help out of desperation. They did not export grain, it's propaganda.



Yeah. There was talk by some Bolshevik officials of exporting grain to get money to help industrialize, but it wasn't connected to any supposed plot to take advantage of ARA aid or anything like that. It was just discussed as a means to help develop an economy destroyed by years of warfare. Without economic reconstruction and modernization there was no hope of averting future famines anyhow.

File: 39333c4e02de75f⋯.jpg (158.48 KB, 1174x738, 587:369, bolshevik-jews.jpg)


How does /marx/ respond to the talking point of the Nazis whenever talking about Marxism as some "Jewish conspiracy", then citing that the Soviet Union's government officials was made up of 95% jews. They often like to double down on Trotsky as well for some reason even though he was purged from the party thanks to Stalin. What is the official /marx/ist response to "Jewish Bolshevism" which Nazis often like to cite as anything to the left of Adolf Hitler, including moderate liberalism.

71 posts and 39 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 9f5a4311ec169b9⋯.png (160.12 KB, 466x359, 466:359, 1535632428690.png)





Harry Waton was involved in the Marxist movement in the 1910s and early 20s but broke ranks with it. He then "organized the Spinoza Institute of America, which during the thirties and forties met regularly in the Labor Temple on New York's Fourteenth Street, where Waton conducted classes and regularly debated with members of various left-wing splinter groups." (Egbert and Persons, Socialism and American Life Vol. 1, 1952, p. 324.)

The Institute was a metaphysical sect whose conception of "communism" was whatever Waton wanted it to be. The Daily Worker (aka official Communist newspaper in the United States) reported the following in its March 13, 1926 issue:

>Most amusing was the attempt in New York the other day of the rag-tag and bob-tail elements formerly vitiating the revolutionary movement with their presence to organize an anti-Communist two-and-a-half international group. Ludwig Lore, social-democratic opportunist, joined hands with the bourgeois lawyer, Louis B. Boudin, and that clownish perverter of Marxism, Harry Waton, in a futile effort to create a political party representing their own disordered views. The majority of those who attended had a good laugh at the antics of the self-appointed triumvirate and, after endorsing the Workers (Communist) Party as the vanguard of American labor, left the hall.

I certainly can't imagine any Communist writing the following absurdities in 1939 (the same year as the quote in that image):

>We shall see that nazism is nothing else than an imitation of Judaism; nazism adopted the principles and ideas of Judaism. Likewise, the nazis are trying hard to imitate the Jews. The nazis are then confronted with this alternative: if they succeed to acquire the merits and virtues of the Jews, the nazis will become Jews; on the other hand, if the nazis fail to acquire the merits and the virtues of the Jews, they will disappear from the stage of history.

>Study Hitler's anti-Marxist Bible: Mein Kampf, read it carefully, and what will you find? You will Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at



>nazis take quotes out of context

Well colour me surprised. Mind you, at least this one is a real quote and not completely made up



From a communist, pro-Marxist liberal book nevertheless too. It is quite clear that (((Ismail)))’s tribal bias is without doubt. Quite sad, he thinks nothing matters but the class and the writings of genocidal twentieth century maniacs. Marxists forget the soul of man, the race, the blood, the soil. A man with these is no man at all. He is no more than a Jewish golem.



>From a communist, pro-Marxist liberal book nevertheless too.

I don't see how "Socialism and American Life" is pro-Marxist. Its main thesis is that America itself was a fitting answer to socialism by supposedly showing that class struggle, etc. were unnecessary.

In any case, even if I quoted from none other than Joseph Stalin, the point still stands that Waton by 1939 was the equivalent of some guy on YouTube with 50 subscribers and hundreds of somewhat incoherent, badly-edited, hour-long videos of himself. He didn't represent anyone or anything except his own tiny group. It makes no sense to quote him as an authority on anything.

File: f727d198fb432d6⋯.png (2.69 KB, 255x127, 255:127, Juche.png)


Non-ML here, what are your thoughts on the Juche ideology?

Do you think it needs improvement? Do you like it? Etc., etc.

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>>Li cited numerous cases of violations of constitutional procedures within the party and the false arrest and imprisonment of more than 30,000 people. He noted the remarkable fact that one of every three hundred people in the DPRK were now criminals. Even those who did no more than simply write on a picture of Kim Il Sung printed in a newspaper were deprived of freedom for five years. Kim even hinted that these persons should receive the death penalty. . .

Holy shit, personality cults are the worst.



Didn't you get that from Myer's "The Cleanest Race"?



No, I got it from Issue #16 of the Cold War International History Project Bulletin, titled "Inside China’s Cold War."

It contains background info, summaries of documents (including the one I posted), and the documents themselves.

The documents themselves are online, e.g. here's one example of Li Sangjo communicating with Soviet officialdom: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/111641

Post last edited at


File: 6e4cddfd07af609⋯.jpg (195.61 KB, 1220x813, 1220:813, Science.jpg)

I have heard past few years about great achievements in North Korea's industry and science.

Does anyone has any good information on their electronics,hardware,software and heavy civilian industry like cars and tractors?



This one is always brought up as an easy way to dispel all criticisms of North Korea.

File: 04a846e19e3f0ea⋯.jpg (12.58 KB, 255x75, 17:5, 10196-Platypus-1-16-png-25….jpg)


What's your opinion the Platypus reading group?


There's a chapter opening up in my town and I'm wondering if it would be something worthwhile.

From the Platypus website:

>In the face of the catastrophic past and present, the first task for the reconstitution of a Marxian Left as an emancipatory force is to recognize the reasons for the historical failure of Marxism and to clarify the necessity of a Marxian Left for the present and future. — If the Left is to change the world, it must first transform itself!

>Platypus is concerned with exploring the improbable but not impossible tasks and project of the reemergence of a critical Left with emancipatory social intent. We look forward to making a critical but vital contribution towards a possible “return to Marx” for the potential reinvigoration of the Left in coming years. We invite and welcome those who wish to share in and contribute to this project.

And this is the reading list for the first session:

-- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On the Social Contract (1762)

• Max Horkheimer, "The little man and the philosophy of freedom" (1926–31)

• epigraphs on modern history and freedom by James Miller (on Jean-Jacques Rousseau), Louis Menand (on Edmund Wilson), Karl Marx, on "becoming" (from the Grundrisse, 1857–58), and Peter Preuss (on Nietzsche)

+ Rainer Maria Rilke, "Archaic Torso of Apollo" (1908)

+ Robert Pippin, "On Critical Theory" (2004)

+ Being and becoming (freedom in transformation) chart of terms

• Chris Cutrone, "Capital in history" (2008 Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



>politics have become about supporting a team.

I don't think this is unique to our current political moment. There have always been backwards people who are resistant to new ideas. Material conditions will open the possibility for their consciousness to change and it's up to a ML party to provide the political education and leadership necessary to reach them when the inevitable crisis comes. One of the principles of dialectical materialism, very simply put, is that things change. Let me paraphrase Lenin to say that sometimes weeks happen in decades and sometimes decades happen in weeks.



>I'll admit I'm skeptical at best of Prysner (and Rapone) but I legitimately am interested in hearing defenses of them.

Ok, I apologize for being defensive. Obviously there are many bad faith arguments that take place online. It's ironic that an image board is the place where I've had the most civil discussions with people on the internet...

Given that Rapone was an officer, I think your skepticism is healthy. Mike has more than a decade of experience organizing among active duty and former soldiers to end imperialism. That's a long time, comrade. I think the best defense of them is to listen to the podcast and hear what they have to say about their experiences.

>How effective do you expect this to be? I can't imagine very many active duty US military tune in.

Just because something doesn't have an immediate pay off doesn't mean that it isn't a worthwhile project. We build Marxist Leninist parties not only during revolutionary periods but during the long winter before the morning thaw. It seems like a distinct possibility that the US war machine is gearing up to slaughter Russian, Chinese, or Iranian workers in the near future. In that event, already having the propaganda infrastructure in place to reach soldiers and civilians in the anti-war movement would be very useful.



*spring thaw

Damn it that was almost a good metaphor



>These dudes have a group at my university. The leader is a total chauvinist and has even tried to morph himself into looking like Trotsky.

Unironically based as fuck



If that existed in my town I'd probably just go check it out and see if it's worthwhile to join. The reading list is a bit weird though, could be interesting but I'd trust it more if it had more works of "orthodox" Marxist analysis in it.

File: c132e75325947ab⋯.jpg (257.03 KB, 648x524, 162:131, girl-reading-lenin-volume-….jpg)


Hi /marx/

Made this fundraiser to help contribute to Ismail's glorious archive of books. It's a good thing he's doing and we should help him out. If you have suggestions or thoughts, that's good too.


If you want to contribute, or share around, that'd be great.



How about a more reasonable goal?


File: a7cfdfd44cae2dd⋯.jpg (226.54 KB, 530x623, 530:623, uzbekgirlreadinglenin1940.jpg)


That's just the default. I halved it. Never used these crowdfunding platforms before, does the goal make a difference in pulling out funds?


Honestly even $500 is a bit excessive. I'm buying used books off of Amazon or Abebooks, not a rather rare 18th century manuscript.

If you collect $500 you wouldn't even need to conduct the sort of voting you mention in the link. You could just request any ol' book and I could buy it.

I'd lower the goal to $100.


File: c8c1302687b056c⋯.jpg (91.78 KB, 848x630, 424:315, mao-reading-stalin.jpg)


Done. $500 may be ambitious, but wouldn't it be nice!

File: e886e1b4cfa939d⋯.png (41.25 KB, 240x273, 80:91, Trotskywojack.png)


Let's discuss the Marxist-Leninist view on homosexuality and associated forms of gender identity. What should it be? Should Leninists even concern themselves with it? Were the leaders of the past wrong on sexual matters I sort of doubt this?

Gearoid O Colmain wrote an interesting but terribly eclectic series on this subject:





For the common view, this Stalin society represents the mainstream view among most Leninists online: http://www.stalinsociety.org/2015/04/08/homosexuality-in-the-ussr/

Personally, I no longer believe that anyone is born gay as LGBT lobbies claim or that its an unchangeable preference. I also do not believe that trans surgery and hormone therapy is medically advisable. But I am not against these people as people; nor am I particularly moralistic about it even though I no longer believe in the ideology justifying their practices. What do you comrades think?

59 posts and 22 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


thank god Skvortsov-Stepanov stopped posting on this forum. what a fucking idiot



That's what you get when former fascists who joined the left aren't willing to abolish their reactionary ideology entirely. A major issue on 8chan tbh



Yeah it's very clear that revolutionaries should be in favor of overcoming of the nuclear family as a form of social organization. Appealing to conservative ideology/nostalgia re. the family, gender, sex, etc. is just opportunism. And this is coming from someone who considers them self rather conservative in their private conduct.



I was truly convinced by your Marxist analysis comrade, I shall henceforth reject my indoctrination and start being attracted to women tomorrow.



Yet another win for anti-revisionism

File: eb0af25f407e948⋯.png (638.51 KB, 1403x935, 1403:935, EU.png)

File: f73620676e5b89d⋯.png (290.71 KB, 1024x403, 1024:403, bewaremedia.png)


Can anyone give me any good information on how EU and Japanese imperialism today? There's thousands of books on US imperialism and recently Tony Norfield even made the effort to write a book on modern British imperialism but almost nothing in-depth on the two major players in the West bloc: the EU nations and Japan.

Also, I don't know if anyone here considers South Korea imperialist but if you have any information on that I would appreciate it. I know about some of the nasty things they did in Vietnam plus buying up former Soviet/East bloc assets at firesale prices post-1992 but not much more.

11 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: f1dc14e47659779⋯.png (1.32 MB, 1498x1702, 749:851, warsawpactgf.png)

East German exposé of West German imperialism:



File: d3d7aa531c8d97b⋯.jpg (1 MB, 1280x1555, 256:311, Germany.jpg)

EU is a mixed system. I have heard that it supports German imperialism, because German subsidies mega companies just brought a lot of east European and even UK industry (van and rolls Royce as example) and in turn they dominate them with parasitic trade deals.

There is also a domination by Brussels but I am not well read enough on it. Thanks for the thread,op.



This is a good point. London is sort of tax heaven for a lot of European banks and other IT companies.



What do they mean by top export partner? Is it the country that takes in most goods from the country on the map?



Sorry for bad grammar in the post. This map shows which country receives most export from which county. After fall of socialism in the east, German (subsidized)mega companies brought a lot of industry in the east to control the markets there. Germany also owns British van and rolls Royce companies and perhaps many other companies in the west as well as east..

File: 1aba33ae097dc87⋯.jpg (30.71 KB, 258x300, 43:50, 1-karl-marx-russian-school.jpg)


Seeming as /leftypol/ is useless for the this kind of thread, this will be the designated Capital reading thread. The gist is that people new to Marx, like me, will be able to ask here questions specifically regarding the volumes of Capital.

Starting on page 63 (in the PDF arranged by marxists.org), I run into this long and confusing paragraph:

>In a given country there take place every day at the same time, but in different localities, numerous one-sided metamorphoses of commodities, or, in other words, numerous sales and numerous purchases. The commodities are equated beforehand in imagination, by their prices, to definite quantities of money.

So far so good.

>And since, in the form of circulation now under consideration, money and commodities always come bodily face to face, one at the positive pole of purchase, the other at the negative pole of sale,

>it is clear that the amount of the means of circulation required, is determined beforehand by the sum of the prices of all these commodities. As a matter of fact, the money in reality represents the quantity or sum of gold ideally expressed beforehand by the sum of the prices of the commodities. The equality of these two sums is therefore self-evident.

What exactly did he mean by "determined beforehand" and "ideally"? As some platonic sum of prices that should be if it's converted to money or the literal equality of value of the the amount of prices to the circulating currency? Judging by the paragraph on the next page I'm inclined to think of the former.

>We know, however, that, the values of commodities remaining constant, their prices vary with the value of gold (the material of money), rising in proportion as it falls, and falling in proportion as it rises. Now if, in consequence of such a rise or fall in the value of gold, the sum of the prices of commodities fall or rise, the quantity of money in currency must fall or rise to the same extent.

>The change in the quantity of the circulating medium is, in this case, it is true, caused by the money itself, yet not in virtue of its function as a medium of circulation, but of its function as a measurPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

94 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 5ca1d0ef8519613⋯.jpg (5.35 KB, 175x182, 25:26, 1527261318071.jpg)


this thread should be pinned


File: 5a081bba0726502⋯.jpg (10.79 KB, 250x339, 250:339, Marx1.jpg)

Still counting on someone to answer my questions about volume 2. Gonna start volume 3 in a few days.


File: 16e595ef7b9745e⋯.jpg (45.33 KB, 903x960, 301:320, brainlet3.jpg)

retard here. Just started chapter 3.

When he starts babbling on about exponents it just flies right over my head. So, what I've gathered from section 1:

Price is the form of appearance of value, a real thing taking the form of an abstract thing.

The exchange ratio is the relation between price and value. It's at this point that there's a measurable difference between the two?

"...whose laws can only assert themselves as blindly operating averages between constant irregularities."

Is he saying here that prices tend to average around value?

"...with the result that price ceases altogether to express value"

And now it doesn't because muh qualitative contradiction?

Help me make sense of all this pls



I'll be honest I remember the least from the first chapters of volume 1 and I came in understanding the LTV from other introductory texts, so take of my answers what you will. Which translation of Capital are you reading anyway?

>The exchange ratio is the relation between price and value.

The exchange ratio is the socially necessary labor time ratio between commodity X and commodity Y.

1 coat: 20 linen

I don't recall he talked much about prices in volume 1 besides a few remarks. In most, if not all, of the scenarios he presents he preemptively states that the price is equal to the value, to avoid complications. If my answer isn't what you meant then I've completely forgotten this part. Post the part where he talks about it.

>Is he saying here that prices tend to average around value?

I couldn't find the quote you posted in my version and I'm not sure about the context of that cut-off sentence, so my best reference is to volume 3 where he explains much more lucidly about the nature of prices.

To put it simply and shortly, the value of a commodity (i.e. its socially necessary labor time) is the average around which prices fluctuate, and only over time does a trend emerge.

>And now it doesn't because muh qualitative contradiction?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Looking at the half-quote I'm guessing (and really there's nothing else to guess but that) he meant that under certain conditions price does not represent value anymore. He gives several explanations in vol. 3.



>To put it simply and shortly, the value of a commodity (i.e. its socially necessary labor time) is the average around which prices fluctuate, and only over time does a trend emerge.

That's what I figured Marx was saying.

>I couldn't find the quote you posted in my version

Sorry, here's the full passage. Section 1 of chapter 3:

>The possibility, therefore, of a quantitative incongruity between price and magnitude of value, i.e. the possibility that the price may diverge from the magnitude of value, is inherent in the price-form itself. This is not a defect, but, on the contrary, it makes this form the adequate one for a mode of production whose laws can only assert themselves as blindly operating averages between constant irregularities.

The price-form, however, is not only compatible with the possibility of a quantitative incongruity between magnitude of value and price, i.e. between the magnitude of value and its own expression in money, but it may also harbour a qualitative contradiction, with the result that price ceases altogether to express value, despite the fact that money is nothing but the value-form of commodities. Things which in and for themselves are not commodities, things such as conscience, honour, etc., can be offered for sale by their holders, and thus acquire the form of commodities through their price.

>volume 3 where he explains much more lucidly about the nature of prices.

>he meant that under certain conditions price does not represent value anymore. He gives several explanations in vol. 3.

Ok, I'll try to not overthink prices too much 'til I get to volume 3.

Thanks mate.

File: 78dc3994606388e⋯.jpg (26.78 KB, 400x400, 1:1, 326866.jpg)


>Shit on Christians

>"Haha, comrade, fuck Christians,"

>Everyone joins in on ragging on dumb shit Evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics believe.

>Shit on Islam

>Awkward looks, people nervously chuckle, find out I'm suspended from the party a few days later.

How in fuck did Islam of all religions, arguably the most reactionary religion on earth, become such a fucking sacred cow for a huge portion of the left?

20 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>How in fuck did Islam of all religions, arguably the most reactionary religion on earth, become such a fucking sacred cow for a huge portion of the left?

never heard of hinduism? or confucianism?

india: where all of its main communist parties are upper-caste and look down on dalits. some communism.

islam is less reactionary than most religions, and islamaphobia is simply you regurgitating imperialist propaganda


File: 42ec8a10548ab2c⋯.jpg (363.91 KB, 966x1210, 483:605, Gustave_dore_crusades_a_fr….jpg)


Islam is, unlike Christianity, a massively expansionist and legalized religion in the political sense - there is no seperation between state and religion in Islam, all secular heads of state, including those who are practicing Muslims, are deemed heretics in Islam. Islam seperates the world into dar al-islam, the "House of Peace", dar al-sulh, the part of the world that is allied with Muslims, and dar al-harb. "House of War". This means Muslims are required to politically grasp for power in every territory where Islamic Law isn't established, preferably by conversion of the political authorities, but if that doesn't work (only worked with the Turkic peoples), conquest must be undertaken. This is very different from Christianity, where the political ruler does not matter so much, but how big the Christian flock on the ground actually is - because Christianity has an in-built seperation between church and state. This can be deducted from many aphorisms of Jesus, and was stratifed by Augustine of Hippo in his work De civitate Dei once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.

Of course, let's not be naive: There were times of collusion, particularly in feudalism, but even in those times the ideological core of Christianity remained laical. Prince-Bishops in the Holy Roman Empire received the ring from the pope, but the fief from the Emperor, this even led to a war between the emperor and the pope in the Investiture Controversy. Of course, from a materialistic standpoint, this did not make much of a difference, but it showed that there was not much problem for the absolutist rulers in the Early Modern Age to completely emancipate the emerging state and its bureaucracy from the church, culminating in the bourgoeis revolutions of the 19th century were secularism became dominant. Of course "the will of God" was and even is used by many Christian rulers today to justify heinous shit, but in Islam the entire problematic of a political religion is systematic and very unlikely to be overcome. Many Islam apologists mention Spain in the middle ages, which is also absolute ridiculous. Once the Caliphate of Cordoba collapsed, the regional Muslim rulers who became friendly with the Castillians were denounPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



>all secular heads of state, including those who are practicing Muslims, are deemed heretics in Islam.

If that were the case there would be no Muslim religious leaders and believers who supported Lenin and his successors, Mao and his successors, the PDPA, or bourgeois-nationalist figures like Nasser, the Assads, Saddam, etc.

>This is very different from Christianity, where the political ruler does not matter so much, but how big the Christian flock on the ground actually is

Plenty of Muslims argue that Sharia is only to be applied in countries where Islam is adhered to by the majority of the population.

>Once the Caliphate of Cordoba collapsed, the regional Muslim rulers who became friendly with the Castillians were denounced as heretics by the invading Almoravids and Almohads

The implication being that the Almoravids and Almohads were true Muslims and those regional Muslim rulers were just faking it.

>Many Latin American movements prove that.

There were "communistic" Islamic movements as well, such as the Qarmatians.

You seem to be assuming there is one "true" understanding of Islam and that anyone who departs from this understanding is a fake Muslim, which is a religious way to analyze things. A materialist conception of religion recognizes that believers seek to adapt their faiths to modern life. This can take many forms, from pretty much anti-modern (like the Taliban), fundamentalist (Wahhabis, Iran), pluralist (Ba'athism and other forms of Arab socialism), and stuff in between (like Hezbollah having no problem working with Christians even though its ultimate goal is the establishment of an Iran-esque government.)

Marxists are not theologians or missionaries. We're not trying to discern what "real" Islam is. To us what matters is how religion is used by political movements and individuals.

Lenin wrote oPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at



Could you look for books on the ternary computer developed in the Soviet Union in the 50s in your sources? Then link it and I can buy it.



I can't think of any books off the top of my head that would have numerous sources on Soviet computing.

File: bec269498242591⋯.jpg (64.04 KB, 447x601, 447:601, 1460131773459-1.jpg)


Questions about China today and in the past

15 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>Hence during the 1920s the USSR covertly helped the German army regain some of its strength, allowed it to train on Soviet territory, etc.

Link to that it would be fun to BTFO /pol/ with that tbh



Volume III of E.H. Carr's "The Bolshevik Revolution" covers the basics, e.g. how Seeckt and others sought an alliance with the Bolsheviks against Versailles and how the Soviet and German armies ending up helping each other build up their respective forces: http://b-ok.xyz/book/2829493/57ebb5 (see chapters 28 and 29 on diplomatic matters and pages 434-439 for the economic-military side of things.)

Post last edited at


Im just going to be Honest going into this and tell you all that i dont believe that China can be considered Socialist at this point because of the Mingling of the National-Bougies with CCP leadership and the Massive Privatization of the economy

But i just want your Take(s) on these Articles





It's being discussed in this thread: >>9745



Why do you think the New York Times and the economist is so up in arms about “true Marxism”

What do you know about China beyond what you read in bourgeois media

File: 766eb945f5a7de7⋯.pdf (92.8 KB, Silvia Federici - The repr….pdf)


>(1) At the center of this critique is the argument that Marx’s analysis of capitalism has been hampered by its almost exclusive focus on commodity production and its blindness to the significance of women’s unpaid reproductive work and the sexual division of labor in capitalist accumulation. (2) For ignoring this work has limited Marx’s understanding of the mechanisms perpetuating the exploitation of labor, and led him to assume that capitalist development is both inevitable and progressive, on the assumption that scarcity is an obstacle to human selfdetermination, but capital’s expansion of the forces of production, through large scale industrialization, would in time lead to its transcendence. Marx had apparently second thoughts on this matter in the later years of his life. As for us, a century and a half after the publication of Capital, we must challenge this view for at least three reasons.

Thoughts on this paper?

File: 12187cdb0ff38b1⋯.jpg (334.33 KB, 840x630, 4:3, [Thought intensifies].jpg)


What creates better stuff, a competitive environment or a cooperative environment?

How does socialism facilitate either one of them better than capitalism?

Is the whole cooperation/competition thing a false dichotomy? Can you have both at once?

Is it human nature to be cooperative or competitive or both?

Can we banish the myth of socialism not working because of human competitiveness once and for all?


Scientific competition



...which requires some degree of cooperation, as in sharing ideas and resources. Thus the answer is:

>What creates better stuff, a competitive environment or a cooperative environment?

Yes. Like in anything dialectical in nature.


File: d1d84ee71163ee1⋯.pdf (1.55 MB, Kropotkin - Mutual Aid; A ….pdf)


>What creates better stuff

This is about as vague a qualification as is possible.

>How does socialism facilitate either one of them better than capitalism?

Well cooperation works better in socialism because the economy is planned and information is shared. In capitalism you have competing firms carefully guarding their knowledge of the economy because it gives them a competitive advantage. It's a lot easier to coordinate things when there's effective communication of what is happening.

>Is the whole cooperation/competition thing a false dichotomy? Can you have both at once?

Yes and no. You can compete within a cooperative context. However, the overarching character of a relationship does matter and it's going to be one of three things: adversarial, mutual, or neutral.

>Is it human nature to be cooperative or competitive or both?

Here's a book. Human nature is above all mutable. Humans perhaps more than any other species are adaptable. We'll do what works in our environment. That includes the natural environment and the economic environment.

>Can we banish the myth of socialism not working because of human competitiveness once and for all?

Trying to suppress people's beliefs usually doesn't work so probably not.

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ashleyj / quests / s / strek / tacos / vg / vichan ]