How am I misinterpreting Karl Marx? Marx Says Money is a tool to make capital exchanges easier, not the root of all evil.
>#Capital Volume I >##by Karl Marx, Proof read by Dave Allinson (2015) >##Chapter 6: The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power
>The change of value that occurs in the case of money intended to be converted into capital, cannot take place in the money itself, since in its function of means of purchase and of payment, it does no more than realise the price of the commodity it buys or pays for; and, as hard cash, it is value petrified, never varying. 1 Just as little can it originate in the second act of circulation, the re-sale of the commodity, which does no more than transform the article from its bodily form back again into its money-form. The change must, therefore, take place in the commodity bought by the first act, M-C, but not in its value, for equivalents are exchanged, and the commodity is paid for at its full value. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the change originates in the use-value, as such, of the commodity, i.e., in its consumption. In order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the sphere of circulation, in the market, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment of labour, and, consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of money does find on the market such a special commodity in capacity for labour or labour-power. > >By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use- value of any description. > >But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labour-power offered for sale as a commodity, various conditions must first be fulfilled. The exchange of commodities of itself implies no other relations of dependence than those which result from its own nature. On this assumption, labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that he may be able to do this, he must have it at his disposal, must be the untrammelled owner of his capacity for labour, i.e., of his person. 2 He and the owner of money meet in
... keep reading on reddit β‘Communist Manifesto by By Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Authorized English Translation Edited and Annotated by Frederick Engels Published Online by Socialist Labor Party of America www.slp.org November 2006
>#Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society. To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole and corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems. > We may cite Proudhonβs Philosophie de la MisΓ©re 13 as an example of this form. The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie. > A second and more practical, but less systematic form of this socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government. Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of
... keep reading on reddit β‘I've been doing some digging into Marx's extremely racist commentary. The blogs I found that referenced it were decent, but I thought we could have stronger sources and I did some legwork.
Note that since Marx uses "hard Rs" I censored those specific words because Reddit's algorithm and policy really doesn't like posts that contain them, and I'd hate for this information to be censored due to a direct quote by Marx. Also note that due to Reddit markup, I have to write the word with a character escape \
like this: n\*gger
otherwise Reddit treats the *
as "begin or end italics" and it will mess up the formatting.
>Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.
>
>β¦ the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securitiesβ¦ Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a travelerβs valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a traderβ¦ The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.
>
>⦠Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners⦠The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.
>
>β¦ The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and
It is well known that the author of the general formula for capital, the βmoney β commodities β moneyβ principle that lies at the core of capitalism, is Karl Marx.
Marx wrote: βAll new capital, to commence with, comes on the stage, that is, on the market, whether of commodities, labour, or money, even in our days, in the shape of money that by a definite process has to be transformed into capitalβ.
In Marxβs times the production cycle looked very simple: a capitalist in possession of money would build a manufacturing plant, equip it with either manual or treadle sewing machines, hire workers and start manufacturing commodities, that is, clothes. Nowadays this formula no longer applies: the time of non-electric sewing machines is gone! To be competitive you must resort to electric sewing machines, and that requires energy.
This is why the modern formula for capital is closer to βmoney β ENERGY β commodities β moneyβ. We canβt even begin to imagine manufacturing on any scale without using electricity!
Energy has become the primary factor in creating wealth, even greatly influencing such market concepts as value and added value. Expanding upon the aforementioned Marx quote, we have come to realize that nowadays the main element that drives the transformation of money into capital is energy.
This is why the βTheory of hydrogen standard for moneyβ has scientifically established that the future belongs to an energy-based money standard that is built on hydrogen.
Our future lies with Hydrostandart, a new generation decentralized ecosystem!
Learn more: http://hydrostandart.io/WhitePaperENG.pdf
https://preview.redd.it/xka27bme9nw31.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=095cc49fd010c706bea5a686c63266b24b2aa7c8
https://archive.li/6l8E4
Workers Vanguard No. 1130 23 March 2018
In Honor of Karl Marx
(Quote of the Week)
March 14 marked the 135th anniversary of Karl Marxβs death. We print below excerpts from the graveside speech given by his cothinker and longtime comrade Friedrich Engels in Londonβs Highgate Cemetery on 17 March 1883.
Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.
Two such discoveries would be enough for one lifetime. Happy the man to whom it is granted to make even one such discovery. But in every single field which Marx investigatedβand he investigated very many fields, none of them superficiallyβin every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries.
Such was the man of science. But this was not even half the man. Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general....
For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being,
... keep reading on reddit β‘
Iβve seen someone say that if any Marxist read Karl Poppers critiques of Marx they would stop being Marxists. Iβve only seen strawman critiques of Marx from most liberal thinkers. Could someone inform me on what Karl Poppers critiques of Marx are is there any merit to them?
This is all speculation of course, but what would Karl Marx have thought of the Berlin Wall? What would he have thought of the DDR?
Marx seemed to think that a revolution led by the proletariat would come when the people were ready. Do you think it's fair to say that he would disapprove of the Berlin Wall because it forced communism on people from the top down? I would really appreciate any feedback on this idea or any other speculation.
But no one remembers his sister, Onya, who invented the starting pistol.
> I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating β partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year (in furtherance of every imaginable and unimaginable joint stock enterprise), are forced up to quite an unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse. In this way, I have made over Β£400 and, now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again. Itβs a type of operation that makes demands on oneβs time, and itβs worth while running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money.
Karl Marx writing to Lion Philips, 1864
plz don't take my bideo game McHiltler
You can see it here.
https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/marx.html
I was flabbergasted by the level of sophistication and maturity of the essay he wrote. He only received Latin educations for a few years in high school and could produce stuffs like this. I wonder how they taught Latin back in the really old days. A lot of the PHD students would struggle if they were told to write on this level without preparation.
As we know, the 1840s and 1850s brought a lot of German "radicals" to the United States, and scholarship has suggested that Lincoln had been influenced by, or at least receptive to, Marx's ideas...
Additionally, the book An Unfinished Revolution points to German support for Lincoln, with a number of Marxists and German revolutionaries dotting leadership positions in the Union Army. Carl Schurz, for example, served as a general in the Union army after leaving Europe in 1848, and kept numerous prominent positions in the American government afterwards.
So, considering all of this, what impact would Karl Marx himself have had on the United States if he came to America in 1846? Would he have influenced the Civil War? Would the form of government in the U.S. be different today?
Name : Karl Marx Chakraborty.
Age : 25
Religion : Ex-Hindu
Qualifications : Gender studies graduate presently working on a thesis on Mesopotamian nipple rings.
Believes only communism can deliver the human race from evil.
Equates unhealthy lifestyle with body positivity and freedom of choice.
Believes Hindu festivals are the single greatest cause for air pollution, water pollution, sound pollution, ozone layer depletion, global warming, meteor showers, asteroid explosions etc.
Battles patriarchy and misoginy by being a cuck.
"My girlfriend's ancestors have battled thousands of years of oppression at the hands of my ancestors. As a man it is my duty to support her onlyfans."
Calls anyone and everyone a racist, sexist, homophobe if they have slightly opposing views.
Will suck a Muslim dick at a moment's notice despite being straight to prove that he isn't Islamophobe.
Claims to hate all religions equally but thinks Ghungat is misoginy and Hijab is a choice.
Believes Bhagwa terrorism is a thing but Islamic terrorism isn't.
Hates the army, police, law & order, UC Hindus and Hindu gods.
Tweets against Hinduism with half-assed knowledge. Cries suppression of free speech when somebody corrects him.
Believes anarchy can solve class barriers.
"We have to teach these big corporations a lesson by burning and looting small retail owners."
Claims to be the voice of the voiceless, messiah of the downtrodden, encourages kids to take up arms against authority, while remaining as much away from the frontline as possible.
Wants wealth to be distributed equally among all regardless of contribution, unless ofcourse it's his own wealth.
Wants a world without borders inspired by John Lennon's Imagine.
Hates his parents for being mildly conservative.
Secretly hates himself as well for being a failure.
I've been doing some digging into Marx's extremely racist commentary. The blogs I found that referenced it were decent, but I thought we could have stronger sources and I did some legwork.
Note that since Marx uses "hard Rs" I censored those specific words because Reddit's algorithm and policy really doesn't like posts that contain them, and I'd hate for this information to be censored due to a direct quote by Marx. Also note that due to Reddit markup, I have to write the word with a character escape \ like this: n\*gger otherwise Reddit treats the * as "begin or end italics" and it will mess up the formatting.
>Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.
>β¦ the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securitiesβ¦ Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a travelerβs valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a traderβ¦ The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.
>⦠Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners⦠The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.
>β¦ The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it
... keep reading on reddit β‘https://archive.li/6l8E4
Workers Vanguard No. 1130 23 March 2018
In Honor of Karl Marx
(Quote of the Week)
March 14 marked the 135th anniversary of Karl Marxβs death. We print below excerpts from the graveside speech given by his cothinker and longtime comrade Friedrich Engels in Londonβs Highgate Cemetery on 17 March 1883.
Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.
Two such discoveries would be enough for one lifetime. Happy the man to whom it is granted to make even one such discovery. But in every single field which Marx investigatedβand he investigated very many fields, none of them superficiallyβin every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries.
Such was the man of science. But this was not even half the man. Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general....
For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being,
... keep reading on reddit β‘This is all speculation of course, but what would Karl Marx have thought of the Berlin Wall? What would he have thought of the DDR?
Marx seemed to think that a revolution led by the proletariat would come when the people were ready. Do you think it's fair to say that he would disapprove of the Berlin Wall because it forced communism on people from the top down? I would really appreciate any feedback on this idea or any other speculation.
