On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.

He didn’t always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!

Some significant works:

Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

The Civil War in France

Wage Labor & Capital

Wages, Price, and Profit

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)

The Poverty of Philosophy

And, of course, Capital Vol I-III

Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!

  • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Today I honor Cowbee’s Sisyphean task of explaining that production/trade and capitalism are two different things 🫡

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It gets easier, actually! So I wouldn’t call it Sisyphean. Different parts of Lemmy have different levels of understanding, if I can get parts mostly aware to be more aware, then that helps trickle into other instances, and it’s easier than doing so in instances where Marxism is seen hostiley.

  • pineapple@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Communism is actually human nature. Think about before the human era when everyone was hunter gatherers working together and sharing was what kept everyone alive. There was no currency or concept of ownership.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I recommend this thread, though maybe don’t bother going down the chain that far as it becomes a stalemate.

      Essentially, you’re correct in that tribal societies were very communistic, but not Communist. Marxists call this “primitive communism,” as a distinguishing factor from Communism, a highly industrialized and global society emerging from Socialism.

      The truth is, all modes of production are “human nature.” Human nature, after all, is malleable, and is largely determined by which mode of production humanity finds itself in. Each mode of production turns into another due to human nature, Capitalism is merely also human nature, just like feudalism, tribal societies, as is Socialism and eventually Communism.

  • Zerush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Wrong, capitalism exist since exist money and greedy people which govern countries, since Pharaons and Kings, since the concept of property.

      • Zerush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t speak about small manufacture and commerce, capitalism is only another name of feudalism, where a small minority is the owner of the most part of the resources of a population and even of the population itself. This is the situation which is the same since thousends of years, it’s irrelevant how we call it, it’s always the same pyramid scam.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          You’re using Capitalism as a catch-all term for Class Society. Different forms of Class Society have existed for thousands of years, but Capitalism itself is relatively new.

          • Zerush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            As said, only the name, not the system, it’s irrelevant if they are pharaos, kings, clerics, or like today billonairs, big corporations and banks.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              It’s extremely relevant, because the manner of production is entirely different. In feudalism, as an example, production was largely agricultural, while serfs tilled their parcel of land and produced most of what they consumed for themselves. They didn’t compete in markets, as an example, and specialization was relatively limited outside of handicraftsmen.

              If you fail to accurately analyze the differences between modes of production, you fail to find meaningful conclusions. Oak trees aren’t penguins, even though both are living things.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          capitalism is only another name of feudalism,

          There are fundamental differences between different production systems that we Marxists think are important enough to warrant distinction, even if they’re both instances of class societies.

          I have a feeling you’d digest something better in video:

          Paul Cockshott - Feudal economics

          Watch that and them get back to me.