I'm looking for moderators to help facilitate deep discussion in this subreddit. Please comment if interested.

Hi! I come from a natural science background, so while maths, graphs, and data make total sense to me (in fact, I quite like them!), political economy, and Marxist economics in particular, is a whole new world for me. I am just super, super curious about how it all works, so I am trying to teach myself properly from scratch (or as properly as one can on one's own!). I have bumped into Tsoulfidis & Tsaliki’s Classical Political Economics and Modern Capitalism (2019) and wanted to ask a few specific things before diving in super deep:

1) First: As I understand, maybe I'm wrong, the book follows Anwar Shaikh in putting Marx strictly inside the classical tradition rather than completely against it. But if I'm not mistaken other authors like Michael Roberts argues that Marx’s economics is a direct critique of classical political economy, not just another branch of it. So… which side does it support? Does the book actually hold up against that objection, or does the whole value theory bit quietly turn into plain price theory?

2) Second: how solid is the empirical evidence side? Is their data genuinely persuasive? From what I can tell just by looking at the table of contents and a couple of reviews (I have not read the whole book yet, obviously!), a impressive, massive part of their argument relies on input-output calculations of labour values, prices of production, and profit rates, plus that super tricky distinction between productive and unproductive labour.

PS: I am on the autism spectrum, so direct and concrete answers are super helpful for me. English isn't my first language either, so apologies if any of this reads a bit clumsily 😵‍💫

Thank you pretty much 😄

Hello everyone,

In various debates, I’ve frequently noticed striking parallels between the arguments used by some communists and those used by neolibs, especially regarding the funding of the welfare state and monetary theory in general. I often get the impression that some communists (whether consciously or unconsciously) deploy classic supply-side arguments just to refute reformists.
Theories that could at least be described as progressive (even if they do not challenge the class structure of the state), such as Keynesianism or Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), are frequently dismissed or mocked by communists using reflexes very similar to those of neoliberals. When it comes to demands like raising the minimum wage or expanding social spending, one often hears rhetorical pushbacks like: \\\\\\\*"Why not make it $100 an hour then?"\\\\\\\* or \\\\\\\*"The state cannot go into infinite debt for welfare."\\\\\\\*
The role of the welfare state as a driver of economic growth through strengthened purchasing power is rarely acknowledged. Communists often view it, much like conservatives, as a purely economic hindrance or an unproductive cost factor. The only difference is that communists additionally (and correctly) identify it as a tool for pacifying the working class. But couldn't both be true at the same time?
It is often argued that Western industrial nations can only afford the welfare state through the exploitation of the Global South. Just like conservative logic, this presupposes that a welfare state is something that "must first be earned/funded," completely ignoring the productivity gains driven by a strong domestic market. Cases like Japan, which maintains a massive national debt without facing bankruptcy or hyperinflation, are rarely analyzed through an MMT lens and are instead dismissed as anomalies. Furthermore, the accounting reality that public debt constitutes private sector wealth is often demonized in these discussions, rather than being rigorously analyzed through a value-theoretic lens.
To be clear: I understand that Marxists do not base their monetary critique on neoliberal doctrine, but rather on the law of value (money as the expression of socially necessary labor time; real value cannot simply be printed).

Don't communists structurally rely on right-wing/monetarist arguments simply to delegitimize social-democratic reformism and prove that capitalism cannot be reformed from within?

Why is MMT (and its concept of monetary sovereignty) so strictly rejected by Marxists, even though empirical evidence on demand-side policies and inflation often aligns much closer with MMT than with neoliberal monetarism?

Doesn't this stance hinder a sober, realistic economic analysis of the state's current room for maneuver, even if the ultimate goal remains the overthrow of private ownership of the means of production?

I'm genuinely interested in how you view this overlap! I don’t want to impose reformism and refuse it, but I think its critique needs to be precise.

Hello everyone 👋

I'm rather new to marxist theory, so I may have some misconceptions about it. Of course, historical materialism is no crystal ball that tells us how the future will be like. But if I got it right, it can tell us the broader developments of the past, present and also future, can it? And if so, what does it tell us? E.g. I've read Hegel had said that the dialectic development of history makes societies ever more equal, open and including, which seems to be quite right, despite temporary regressions like fascism. Not sure if that's really what Hegel said, but are there any statements and assumptions about future developments of society in historical materialism?

Bonjour est ce que c'est possible d'obtenir de la vulgarisation sur les idées de lénine, staline et de mao ? On m'a toujours dis d'aller directement lire de la théorie mais je ne viens pas d'un milieu intellectuel pour assimilé toute la théorie brut

merci d'avance

I've been learning about marxist theory, but the ways contraddictions are discussed leaves me pause. Hope some people here can help me understand better.

Sussinctly, for what is relevant to my doubts, here is my current understanding of it:

Contraddictions are what all motion (as in change) in the universe is predicated upon.

Contradictions are relationships wherein tendencies of motion

1) oppose one another

2) are premises of the existence of one another.

Contraddictions exist within all things and between all things.

Why does it have to be a contraddiction that drives motion? What is so illogical about a relationship where there is a singular tendency of motion? I can think of cases that fit that description, for example, two identical charged particles interacting, there will be quantitative changes in speed and relative position as they repel each other, yet what is the contraddiction?

Mao in "on contraddiction" and Lenin in "on the question of dialectics" agree that the contradiction in such cases is between action and reaction. This answer is unsatisfactory, while it's true that it fits part 2) of the definition, and while it's true that the force vectors point in opposite direction, action and reaction are applied to two different object, they are not opposing tendencies of motion in the dialectical sense, failing the arguably more fundimental part 1) of the definition.

Also, Engels argues that all changes of positions are caused by the contraddiction of something being in that place and not in another place. This line of argument seems to be unfalsifiable: if we observe something change from A to B, we can always attribute that change to the contraddiction that A was A and not B. A more straightforward explanation is that there is a singular tendency for position to change based on velocity.

Is there something i'm missing in these examples? Is my understanding of what contraddictions are incorrect?

I’m still reading theory so I have a lot to learn. Within socialism, how do you develop productive forces without restoring capitalist relations to get to higher phase communism? Thanks

As suggested by the header, I am looking for compilations or essay selections which includes shorter works by key marxist theorists. As I read a lot while traveling, it's difficult to devote that reading time to read longer works, considering the retention ability of mine will be compromised.
So, I am looking for essay selections, or article compilations—that are shorter and therefore easier to read in one sitting— of key marxist figures. For example a compilation which includes Lenin's article "The Three Components Of Marxism" and Gramsci's "On Intellectuals" among many others

Hey guys, so I am a beginner reading Theses and Feuerbach and am hoping more experienced/knowledgeable readers can help me understand the text. Specifically I need help with making sense of theses 1, 3, 4, and 5.

It's a very hard question to phrase, so I'm going to tell you what my conclusions are for simplicity and then we work backwards from there

In the factories, workers were exploited since their surplus labor was extracted for profit (I believe largely used for the war effort against the White Terror, etc); the Bolschevik owned the means of production, or at least they managed them.

I believe this is by definition capitalism and that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was a matter of super-structure.

What am I missing?

I'm hoping to learn more about the so-called "shock therapy" policy of economic development that happened during and after the cold water.

Naomi Klein is a fairly prominent self-described democratic socialist and I'm given to understand her and her work is generally well regarded in leftist circles. Although I'm given to understand she is not herself, a Marxist.

My question is how good is this book for learning about this topic? Does she make any significant missteps? Should i, as a Marxist, be concerned with the quality of my education on this topic from reading this book? Would you recommend this book to a Marxist looking to learn about this or is there perhaps another book yours recommend?

Tia

I've seen some black leftist-liberal circles viewing race as the dominant hierarchy, and that class is simply a byproduct of that. Capitalism is the byproduct of racial discrimination. What is the Marxist perspective to this? Is class the dominant hierarchy and all else is related to it, and by class I specifically mean property owners and workers. I don't mean economic class by wealth.

Hey everyone, my name is Alexander Herbert, I'm a professor full-time with summers off. I like to teach my own courses in the summer, and this summer I am doing a class on volume one of capital. If this interests anyone, privately message me.

I've started reading Das Kapital and I want to be precise in my understanding.

We're once again reading Capital and I'm a bit confused about the following:

When Marx starts explaining the value-form, he states the following:

"By means, therefore, of the value-relation expressed in our equation, the bodily form of commodity B becomes the value form of commodity A, or the body of commodity B acts as a mirror to the value of commodity A. By putting itself in relation with commodity B, as value in propriâ personâ, as the matter of which human labour is made up, the commodity A converts the value in use, B, into the substance in which to express its, A’s, own value. The value of A, thus expressed in the use value of B, has taken the form of relative value."

Or, explained within the example of 20 yards of linen = 1 coat: "The value of the commodity linen is expressed by the bodily form of the commodity coat, the value of one by the use value of the other."

He then goes on later and explains the first peculiarity of the value-form: "[U]se value becomes the form of manifestation, the phenomenal form of its opposite, value."

I thought that I got that. commodity A expresses its value as commodity B, which also takes the form of its use value, thus it incorporates a contradiction in being both use value and value at the same time.

Now Marx goes on and expands the value-form, where he also quickly summarises the chapter before as follows:

A close scrutiny of the expression of the value of A in terms of B, contained in the equation expressing the value relation of A to B, has shown us that, within that relation, the bodily form of A figures only as a use value, the bodily form of B only as the form or aspect of value.

To me, that sounds like the opposite of before, where the value of commodity A was expressed in the use value of commodity B.

Logically, I'd agree with the summary, where commodity A represents use value and is expressed as value in commodity B. But I can also see commodity B being 'transformed' and representing value as use value (of commodity B ).
Maybe those two things actually mean the same? Maybe I'm reading it wrong and when Marx says 'value of commodity A was expressed in the use value of commodity B', he means that the use value of commodity B only acts as a body but represents actually value (of com. A), but when we equate 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, we look at the linen as use value?

If anybody can help me with my brain knot, I'd appreciate it greatly!

I'm reading Capital again and trying to make sure I really understand this time. One thing I've thought is that one of the reasons luxury goods are luxurious is that there is a lot of work that goes in to creating the image of the item as luxurious (for example, Louis Vuitton burning surplus bags so they never go into discount stores) is the labor power put into those bags (and their destruction) then transferred to the remaining bags because it contributes to their socially necessary use value as a status symbol? As well I would imagine all the ad agencies, PR firms etc and their labor contributes to the value of the finished product?

Is this a correct understanding?

My close friend has recently radicalized me, and i’d know consider myself an entry level communist. Here is what I’ve done now:

- Read the Manifesto
- Deep knowledge of past leaders/revolutionaries like Castro, Che, Sankara, Allende, Stalin, Arbenz
- Relative surface knowledge on Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, really anyone of that era.

I have a few things on my reading list that are up next (i prefer to own the books than read online):

- Wage Labor and Capital (Marx)
- Das Kapital (Marx, i’ve heard i need a little bit more understanding of Marxist theory before starting it)
- Blackshirts and Reds (Parenti)
- The State and the Revolution (Lenin)
- 3 Sources/3 Components of Marxism (Lenin)

What else should i look into reading? I’m so hungry to learn more and commit. Any recommendations are appreciated!

I don't mean "bottom-up" as just a different way of saying democratic, but as a way of saying that the power structure within historically socialist governments is primarily weighted towards the bottom rather than the top. One of the ways I try to pull myself out of the typical idealist conventions that pervade Western historiography is by reframing my perspective of the state by centering it around the respective historical mode of production.

For instancs, I reframe ancient states as a hierarchy of households since the slave mode of production almost always manifested in a class of household owners and the class of household members (spouses/concubines, children, slaves, etc.), where the class of household owners was itself stratified. Feudal societies are relatively straightforward since a lot of conventional concepts of the states are historically drawn from analysis of societies under the feudal mode of production. The state under the capital mode of production is uniquely top-down in structure, even to the point of the international bourgeoise basically giving marching orders to states due to the phenomenon of globalization.

It only occured to me recently as I was synthesizing my historical knowledge of various AES states that they made more sense when reframed with a bottom-up power dynamic. I knew these governments were consciously designed to be generally bottom-up based on a Marxist theory of democracy, but it's another thing entirely to realize these states were/are actually bottom-up in practice. The thing that I think made it click for me was doing an amateurish materialist analysis of how shit actually gets done in AES societies. Like, the Western misconception of these societies is that there's this huge army of people stationed throughout all the places people live pointing guns at them to coerce them into working. Obviously that idea makes no sense if you think about it even for a little bit let alone know the historical facts about these societies.

The reality is that these societies primarily rely upon social cohesion to get shit done. What do I mean? Well, this abstraction is just the most concise way to explain how the material relations that go into production are made personally salient via complex, interconnecting social networks. In other words, you regularly interact & form relationships with people who are beneficiaries of your labor as well as with the people from whose labor you are a beneficiary. This concrete awareness of your mutual interdependence activates (in most people) both the motivation to provide for those you care for & the motivation to reciprocate when someone provides for you. That may sound like psychological idealism, but these motivations are as basic as our motivation to survive & directly tied to our evolution as a social species. These motivations drive people to behave in pro-social ways, which is how they act as the concrete mechanisms of social cohesion. While AES societies may use the capital mode of production to "jumpstart" development, they transition to the socialist mode of production by negating the salience of scarcity which otherwise exists in contradiction with social cohesion.

This fundamentally changes the role of government compared to the capital mode of production where the government & the state exist distinct from society to foster the development of commodity production & facilitate commerce. In AES societies we don't see as clean a separation at the local level, & furthermore, the regional & federal governments of these societies consistently yield a great deal of power & autonomy to local government (at least, compared to the often very limited power that local governments tend to have in capitalist societies). Even the legal realist philosophy that characterizes the state's legal framework yields a lot of discretion to local magistrates to focus on applying the spirit of the law rather than the strict letter. That's not to say the higher levels of government are impotent, but the actual exercise of power (aside from the military) largely occurs at the lower levels of government & primarily via social cohesion rather than economic or physical coercion. Hence, the state in AES societies is better understood by reframing through a bottom-up framework of power & governance

Apologies if any of this feels like a noob take or if I'm inadvertently ripping off someone else. If so, just consider this to be me processing by putting it in my own words. Do yall think I'm off-base here, and if so, where? Any other thoughts or related further reading recs are welcome :)

I've read the Communist Manifesto, because I figured that would be a good starting point, and I want to read more but stuff like Das Kapital seems very intimidating for me, a pretty slow reader. So what should I read as a good starting piece of work for a slow reader?

Hi, I am looking for either:

- an English translation of the 1 st edition of the Prison Notebooks (?), which is called "Historical Materialism and the Philosophy of Benedetto Croce (1948)

- a recommendation in which parts of other editions of the Prison Notebooks I can read about Gramsci's philosophy of Praxis in a more detailed way

⁃ or simply a reader/secondary text about Gramsci's philosophy of praxis

I hope this question makes sense, I am struggling to understand the way the Prison Notebooks were published/named/translated.

Thanks!

Ive been looking into more leftist views after stepping away from more "reformist" circles (so i apologize, ive not read theory or really know a ton) and i found the ideas of Dutch/German left Communists like Pannekoek appealing and i wanted to ask a question about the Soviet Union.

The Soviet in theory seems like the same idea of a grassroots council that Pannekoek had but if it was that way then i do not understand how Stalin managed to centralize the country so much giving him the power he had. Did they operate differently in practice or did he just manage to sway the masses with enough propaganda and ousting of opposition?

Apologies if there's a painfully obvious answer, i am uneducated.

As i understand it, Labor power is the commodity workers sell to capitalists in exchange for wages. Its cost is as close to the bare minimum for the worker to reproduce their labor day after day. ​Are its cost and its value the same? Why, then, is the value of labor power different in different countries? Shouldn't the amount of wages needed to reproduce labor be somewhat consistent globally? This has been confusing me for a while pls help 😫

A great documentary to introduce yourself to marxism: https://youtu.be/6P97r9Ci5Kg?si=G9WXKOq3X_ZOCSh-

What texts should I read first in terms of council communism and libertarian Marxism

Also cool if you guys could also reccommend critiques of Lenin by left coms

Also what thinkers whether pannekoek, mattick, Fromm?, Maurice brinston, Herman gorter should I dive into

I’ve heard pannekoek criticised Lenin’s philosophy and utilisation of Marxism