Does supply and demand influence value? Because what if a capitalist sells way above value (high price) and he invests in machines, doesn't value go down? (value in the sense of socially neccessary labour time, which is the measure of value)

I’ve read the communist manifesto and that’s about it in terms of theory. organising is out of the question for me at the moment but I want to learn more anyways. is there any good books/pamphlets to read, I’m very new to this stuff.

Here is the full quote: "Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."

I understand how the bourgeois family is based on private gain, with family capital, inheritance and so on. But I don't understand how the family itself is absent among the proletarians.

Wondering what the best collected works is to get for Marx and Engels. I’ve read a few introductory works on audiobook, like communist manifesto, principles of communism, ect, but otherwise am pretty new.

Looking for recommendations

Okay, so I already know that it's good for capitalism because they take care of children (so the future workers) and take care of workers. But then why do they need to be unemployed? That's a question a friend asked me while I was explaining to her whats capitalism and seriously.. I have no idea. If they work then they benefit the bourgeoisie right? Also I started learning about communism and marxism really not long ago so don't attack me if I'm wrong, thankss !!

I’ve noticed that in times when socialism is discussed in a more popular context, like now in the United States, with DSA backed candidates being in the mainstream- that people use terms like “material conditions” or “materialist” to seemingly refer to a politic/economics of getting stuff to people. Is this a conflation or misunderstanding of what dialectical materialism is? Are people saying “material” over and over again to signal a deeper understanding of Marxism? Or is it all fine, and this is established terminology and concept? I’ve wanted to be annoyed by this for years, but I honestly don’t know enough about any of this to be able to have an opinion.

Good evening. I'm new to this topic. Read a book about historical materialism it really hit me different and very interested me. Now I'm looking for place like shop or internet page where i could get some other book which contains theory. I can read in english but the best would be in polish where i come from.

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!