Long, boring, hard to pay attention to. I read philosophy and theory sometimes but it’s few and far between for those reasons. I really have to be in a special mood to sit down and read something that dense.
There are simpler, shorter, and easier works by Marx, Like Critique of the Gotha Programme,Wage Labor and Capital, as well as Value, Price, and Profit.
Reading Marx is like reading Adam Smith. Both wrote about economic systems before economics was even a thing. All ideas start somewhere but our ideas, and our society, have advanced dramatically in the 140+ years they’ve been dead. They’re more interesting for historical purposes than economic ones.
All of Marx’s main concepts, surplus value, classes and class struggle, alienation, are just as relevant today as when they were written. Much like Newton, Marx built the solid foundation that scientific socialists stand on today.
Right, but nobody tells anyone interested in physics to read Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. If you’re interested in history, sure. If you’re interested in physics, read a modern physics textbook.
I thought to look this up cause I think it’s neat and it’s often the case that some technology is described long before you’d think. The first description of using electrical switches to do logic operations came in 1886 in a letter from Charles Sanders Peirce. That’s between Capital volume 2 and 3, and most importantly, AFTER he described the law of value.
You’re very good at saying you’re right and very bad at providing evidence. The best thing about lemmy’s size is I can recognize which usernames to disregard immediately after enough encounters.
Why not?
Long, boring, hard to pay attention to. I read philosophy and theory sometimes but it’s few and far between for those reasons. I really have to be in a special mood to sit down and read something that dense.
There are simpler, shorter, and easier works by Marx, Like Critique of the Gotha Programme, Wage Labor and Capital, as well as Value, Price, and Profit.
Reading Marx is like reading Adam Smith. Both wrote about economic systems before economics was even a thing. All ideas start somewhere but our ideas, and our society, have advanced dramatically in the 140+ years they’ve been dead. They’re more interesting for historical purposes than economic ones.
But it’s also hard to know what contemporary economists are arguing without reading those foundational writers
All of Marx’s main concepts, surplus value, classes and class struggle, alienation, are just as relevant today as when they were written. Much like Newton, Marx built the solid foundation that scientific socialists stand on today.
Right, but nobody tells anyone interested in physics to read Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. If you’re interested in history, sure. If you’re interested in physics, read a modern physics textbook.
Easy to follow vidyas onYoutube might be more engaging.
Das Kapital described crypto before digital computers were even an idea. His work is still relevant.
I thought to look this up cause I think it’s neat and it’s often the case that some technology is described long before you’d think. The first description of using electrical switches to do logic operations came in 1886 in a letter from Charles Sanders Peirce. That’s between Capital volume 2 and 3, and most importantly, AFTER he described the law of value.
Lol. Lmao, even.
In what manner has this proven Marx wrong?
You’re very good at saying you’re right and very bad at providing evidence. The best thing about lemmy’s size is I can recognize which usernames to disregard immediately after enough encounters.
What evidence am I supposed to provide here, exactly? I’m asking for clarification.
Memes. Look at their username.