@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
theory
A community for in-depth discussion of books, posts that are better suited for [email protected] will be removed.
The hexbear rules against sectarian posts or comments will be strictly enforced here.
A helpful conceptualization of Marx’s cycles is an inverted Fisher Price Rock a Stack:
Each individual donut represents a M-C-M cycle, but once Labor and mp are introduced, the surplus value raises you to a larger donut.
reporting in for posting duty
thank you
You're welcome
Of course, as always, you do good work.
time for more CIRCUITS ⚡
Capital, as self-valorizing value, does not just comprise class relations, a definite social character that depends on the existence of labour as wage-labour. It is a movement, a circulatory process through different stages, which itself in turn includes three different forms of the circulatory process. Hence it can only be grasped as a movement, and not as a static thing.
– ch. 4, p. 185 in my penguin ed.
i think this must be one of the key passages so far in our reading? i'll try to come back and share some thoughts once i'm done with the chapter
but, as someone with a degree in literature, one thing that strikes me immediately is that so much of so-called "marxist" literary analysis is just an alasysis of class relations—often focused on the bourgeoisie, and their cultural artifacts—and not the totality produced by the circulation of capital that marx is detailing here
Yes, I think this is a key point being made so far, that it's fundamentally incorrect to think of capital as a big pile of money, or as a machine sitting in a factory. Capital is not just the objects or social relationships, but it is the way these things are always transforming, always in motion (metaphorical and actually).
I read through Stephen Shapiro's summary of Chaps. 1 - 6.
Good stuff. Very much needed.
I'll have to look into that. I'm having a much harder time comprehending vol 2 so far.
Oh, this is for Vol. 1.