What are
/r/Marxism's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/Marxism:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/Marxism:
Academia.edu
WordPress
CastBox
Podomatic
GitBook
OpenStreetMap
Z-Library
Airtable
LibriVox
The most popular reviews in /r/Marxism:
Black Reconstruction in America by WEB Dubois is, hands down, the best book about this period in American history from a Marxist perspective.
Actually Marx claimed that England in 1881 could use democracy. A quote and link is in this paper:
https://www.academia.edu/25991169/The_State_and_Communism_A_Scientific_Contribution_to_State_Theory
> Here is a great article by Tony Smith on a category mistake at the heart of Piketty's work.
Verso has sales all the time, you can always email and ask—I've had luck even requesting specific titles.
Link to Sheehan's book
Memory of the World (accessed via TOR or a VPN) is a repository for PDF and EPUB books, largely academic. Think project Gutenberg...but for things with live copyright.
There's this handy guide on Airtable on how to find books online although be aware that their legality in your jurisdiction is not guaranteed.
This one is really good. Thorough, but succinct. The author obviously has a more than thorough understanding of Marx and Engels' work and pretty much lays out the full, irrefutable arguments here.
>The "Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall", the "Principle of Infinite Accumulation", the "Labor Theory of Value", the "Inevitability of the proletariat revolution", among other things, have all been pretty effectively disproved, discredited, or are hindrances to moving theory and/or action forward.
No they haven't. Where has the LTV been 'disproved'? Where has the falling rate of profit been disproved? Where has the inevitability of proletarian revolution been disproved? It's inevitable the sun will die, just because it doesn't happen in the next days or years doesn't 'disprove' it. The only one of these upon which there is any worthwhile debate between Marxists is the 'tendency of the rate of profit to fall', a problem Marx struggled with a lot himself, but that's hardly deeply relevant to Marxism or capitalism. Value-theory and his analysis of the value-form is his centrepiece.
>and a host of other ideas from "The Wealth of Nations"
the only thing your comment prove is how little you know about Marx's writings. His labour theory of value is fundamentally different to Smiths (or Ricardo’s), hence why the full title of Capital is 'Capital: Critique of Political Economy', i.e. Adam Smith et al. and the classical school which dominated political economy at the time.
Rupturing the Dialectic: The Struggle against Work, Money, and Financialization - Harry Cleaver:
https://www.academia.edu/32888580/Rupturing-the-Dialectic-final.pdf
Debt:The First 5000 Years - David Graeber:
https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf
Other must read books:
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy - Michael Hudson
The Heretic's Guide to Global Finance: A Guide to Creative Financial Activism - Brett Scott
The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community - Stephen A. Marglin
> I love Lev Vygotsky and his Thinking & Speech/Thought & Language.
In this vein, as a psychology major I would highly recommend cultural psychologist Carl Ratner's <em>Vygotsky’s Sociohistorical Psychology and its Contemporary Applications</em> and <em>Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a Marxist Psychology</em>. 👍
On mass podcast has an episode where he discusses the movie although it focuses more on black liberation than doing a purely Marxist analysis but it's worth a listen anyway https://castbox.fm/vb/75136688
>I like your strategy of never providing your own sources while constantly requesting others do so. Still waiting to hear about those gung ho peasants! Anyway the general hardships Japan's people faced in industrialization were similar to other countries. Industrial work is hard. Their peasants were also forced to give up larger portions than previously had been required. If you would like to learn more I recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Industrialization-Asian-Economy-Kawakatsu/dp/1138880892
But famine? The proximate cause of tens of millions of Chinese deaths was not just industrialization, it was collectivization.
>Is your argument that the only land the UK government was responsible for was Britain itself. Nothing else in the empire was their responsibility? By that logic nothing outside of Russia was the USSR's responsibility. I can't imagine that's what you were saying.
What Britain was responsible for is immaterial. Nobody every accused them of doing a good job. Britain was in fact responsible for Ireland, and it was Britain’s fault that Ireland didn’t develop and industrialize during the 1840s. That doesn’t change the fact that the Irish famine happened in the absolutely unindustrialized areas of Ireland.
You’re were trying to connect the 1840s Irish famine with industrialization. That argument is based on the presumption that 1840s Ireland was industrialized. It wasn’t, and you’re trying to bootstrap Ireland into England because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
>Like, the facts part. Do you know anything specific or are you just assuming it was brutal? You’re comparing it to tens of millions of deaths.
I like your strategy of never providing your own sources while constantly requesting others do so. Still waiting to hear about those gung ho peasants! Anyway the general hardships Japan's people faced in industrialization were similar to other countries. Industrial work is hard. Their peasants were also forced to give up larger portions than previously had been required. If you would like to learn more I recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Industrialization-Asian-Economy-Kawakatsu/dp/1138880892
>Lol, the UK has multiple regions. ENGLAND is was heavily industrializing at the point in time. IRELAND was not at all, especially the western hit areas where famine hit hardest. Have you actually read about the Irish famine?
Is your argument that the only land the UK government was responsible for was Britain itself. Nothing else in the empire was their responsibility? By that logic nothing outside of Russia was the USSR's responsibility. I can't imagine that's what you were saying.
I just downloaded both books to look at their bibliographies. Yes, both books have a more anthropological, rather than historical, perspective. I'm not sure which period in Native History you're looking at. The bibliography for both books have some good sources. This might help too: https://www.amazon.com/Indigenous-Peoples-History-ReVisioning-American/dp/0807057835/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=native+american+history&qid=1577458018&sr=8-3
I would recommend going to Amazon and reading the reviews for Native history books.
>No it was aimed at petite bourgeois idiots in America the biggest market for books written in English.
I don't know why you feel the need to contradict me on this. The quotes below prove it.
Below is excerpted from the Foreword to the American Paperback Edition 1956 The Road to Serfdom After 12 Years. It is Chapter 15, p216 in the collection Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics
>"This book might in some respects have been different if I had written it in the first instance with American readers primarily in mind. It has by now made for itself too definite, if unexpected, a place in this country to make any rewriting advisable."
.
>"The book was written in England during the war years and was designed almost exclusively for English readers. Indeed, it was addressed mainly to a very special class of reader in England. It was in no spirit of mockery that I dedicated it 'To the socialists of All Parties'. It has it's origin in many discussion which, during the preceding ten years, I had with friends and colleagues whose sympathies had been inclined towards the left, and it was in continuation of those arguments that I wrote The Road to Serfdom".
As for Orwell, he wrote a positive review of The Road to Serfdom, agreeing with Hayek on his diagnosis, but disagreeing with him on his cure..
>.In the negative part of Professor Hayek’s thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often – at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough – that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.
The generally-acknowledged father of capitalism, Adam Smith, would disagree with you. Smith's famous 1776 book advocating capitalism, "The Wealth of Nations", had clear examples of the government regulating capitalism.
The capitalism we see today in the US is capitalism. Capitalism always will evolve into what libertarians call "crony capitalism" or corporatism -- it's the logical conclusion of capitalism.
It is in the financial interests of capitalists to eliminate competition and to form monopolies, monopsonies, and cartels -- there's simply more profit in it for the capitalists.
Similarly, it is in the financial interests of capitalists to take control of a country's government and political systems and to place political lackeys in positions of political power -- behind-the-scenes plutocracy means more profit for the capitalists.
As such, the US today is a perfect example of modern capitalism.
> "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -- Famous capitalist economist John Maynard Keynes.
I'm not familiar with the latter, but Monopoly Capitalism, was an update of Marx's work by Baran and Sweezy. "Late Capitalism" would be a system whereby the contradictions of capitalism would be leading to its collapse. Many seem to argue that today's capitalism is the last.
In my experience, you don't quite see this too often in academia. The fall of the contradictions have been predicted since Marx. Instead, Neo-Marxism has largely developed into an offshot of Monopoly Capitalism, the claim that finance is replacing the monopoly/oligopoly corporatist structure of Monopoly capitalism or that states have evolved to support a "transnational Capitalist Class" that remove differentiation of domestic economies.
In my opinion the former is winning out.
Can you explain the different contest of Social labor vs. Private labor? I'm assuming this mean who gains from production, but is a more classical differentiation between ownerships of production.
>Uh, I dunno, I figure it's one of those things I should read?
>I also hear there are girls with berets.