/marxsg/

marx was a rothschild plant designed to subvert real socialism

enjoy your tech progress worship cult that will never pan out...what a disgrace

I'm a brainlet guys. Help me understand Marx's Fragment on Machines.
thenewobjectivity.com/pdf/marx.pdf
I feel like I'm missing information that would make it all click.
for example:
>But the determination that the use value of fixed capital is that which eats itself up in the production process is identical to the proposition that it is used in this process only as a means, and itself exists merely as an agency for the transformation of the raw material into the product. As such a means of production, its use value can be that it is merely the technological condition for the occurrence of the process (the site where the
production process proceeds), as with buildings etc., or that it is a direct condition of the action of the means of production proper, like all matières instrumentales. Both are in turn only the material
presuppositions for the production process generally, or for the employment and maintenance of the means of labour. The latter, however, in the proper sense, serves only within production and for production, and has no other use value.

Is he talking about Aristotle's 4 causes? Am I wrong in thinking this is overwrought, and that could have been put far more elegantly?

Capital is sentient

Analysis & discourse needs a 21st century update. Marxism is meant to constantly adapt following the historical material conditions, based upon empirical research.
Problem is that this stopped, and it became dogmatic, with jargon stagnating in the 20st cry based upon which clique of marxism u followed. Marxism was a science, and it needs to become scientific, true to the material conditions, and receptive of the constant change of all relations.

Marxism is pretty patrician, but 'marxists' are the ultimate plebs.

Hegel was a dark hermetic magician and Marxism is furthering his cause

(took me three attempts to properly post this, fuck me)
Stuff taken directly from a personal notebook could've been put more elegantly? You don't say.

I don't think there's any Aristotle in the part you quoted.

>But the determination that the use value of fixed capital is that which eats itself up in the production process is identical to the proposition that it is used in this process only as a means, and itself exists merely as an agency for the transformation of the raw material into the product.
"The useful quality of a concrete mixer in the production process is just in doing the thing that wears it out (i.e. the drum revolving to actually mix shit)" = "The concrete mixer is in this process only a means of transforming of cement, aggregate and water into concrete". This is just a trivial observation.
>As such a means of production, its use value can be that it is merely the technological condition for the occurrence of the process (the site where the production process proceeds), as with buildings etc., or that it is a direct condition of the action of the means of production proper, like all matières instrumentales.
Those are two different possible kinds of means of production, different still from the kind a concrete mixer would be. Ones like buildings don't take part in the production process directly. Ones that are supplementary materials, are like coal you use to heat up a pizza oven. The coal doesn't direcly enter into the product, unlike the cement that enters into concrete.
>Both are in turn only the material presuppositions for the production process generally, or for the employment and maintenance of the means of labour.
"Buildings etc." is a presupposition for the production process generally, "coal etc." specifically because it powers the "third kind" of means of production like ovens or concrete mixers.
>The latter, however, in the proper sense, serves only within production and for production, and has no other use value.
Stuff like commercial ovens or concrete mixers are generally used only within production, whereas things like buildings and coal are still very much useful outside production. (Of course the line is blurred with the oven example--you can use a commercial one at home if you're rich enough. But then you could also buy yourself a dozen of concrete mixers to use as drums. So Marx is obviously considering just the usual case.)

Any books on how Marxism will deal with female hypergamy? (either directly or indirectly)

Attached: 198384.jpg (171x266, 12K)

t.reddit

Ted Bundy wrote a book about Marxism?

reminder Marx hated nature and wanted us to rise above it as Gods.

Because it'll change the way you think about the market economy and the prose is good

You wish.

Because you'll understand how this whole shit works. Without the taboos of classical economy. Yes classical economy doesn't talk about where does the wealth comes from.

the promethean interpretation of marx is fucking stupid. what Marx’s ecology provided was exactly what environmental thought even today most critically lacks, namely a historical-theoretical critique of capital as an alienated form of social-metabolic reproduction, and of what Marx called the ‘irreparable’ effect that this is bound to have on the earth as a place of human habitation if allowed to continue unhindered

what's the formula for values into prices?

Marx is referred to as an antihumanist but I prefer to think of him as a transhumanist, in that he speaks of the productive forces becoming like a force of nature themselves and of the liberation this will provide man from nature's blind aleatoric caprice.

hey guys i am a monarcho-marxist am i welcome here?

fuck marx

>classical economy doesn't talk about where does the wealth comes from
lol, imagine believing this

Marx is, or can easily be considered, a classic economist.

*classical*
I shouldn't post from my phone.

Since when was Tooze a Marxist?

How has Marxist historiography progressed now that we know feudalism was fiction?

Attached: Peter_Brown_Balzan_Prize_Ceremony_2011.jpg (230x346, 17K)

>tfw i'm a fan of marx but fascist
>tfw if you ignore the obnoxious "jews are the most important people!!" and bourgeois accommodationist aspects of the frankfurt school, it's good too

Attached: hitler.gif (300x259, 1.68M)

It's just about how value theory breaks down. The role of human labour progressively becomes about setting in motion and monitoring the process of production so you need to stop thinking of labour as a "factor" of production as industry becomes more of a natural process of energy conversion (e.g. trees produce fruit).

Supply and demand is not an explanation. Supply and demand is more like something magical. The "invisible hand". Magic tricks. Labor theory is constatable (Cockshott), and gives a real explanation for value. Not magical supply and demand.

Here, enjoy
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch01.htm

>Supply and demand is not an explanation. Supply and demand is more like something magical. The "invisible hand". Magic tricks. Labor theory is constatable (Cockshott), and gives a real explanation for value. Not magical supply and demand.

1. Marx was an equilibrium economist in the same sense as the classical economists
2. Prices are empirically real, value and any "long run" in your sense is only a hypothetical statistical fiction

Value = labor. It's not hypothetical.

Attached: Value - labor.png (1127x634, 408K)

Value = energy. It's not hypothetical. psstt

I think that chart gave me braindamage, please don't tell me Marxists actually believe this bullshit

No, just some utopian tankie kiddies from /leftypol/. Marx would've laughed Cockshott out of existence if he saw this.

Hey I'm an econ major kill yourself

This isn't intrinsic, though, it has everything to do with optimization and decreasing marginal product of labour

Also totally worthless as an observation given that not all labour is created equal, there are concerns like human capital at play

Nice containment thread guys.

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm
Still one of the best political takedowns in history.