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.
The books Marx wrote are the evidence. If you read them then you’d see why they are obviously relevant today. Of course, reading and understanding serious literature takes more effort than trolling on public forums.
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.
Yeah, nobody learns Maxwell’s equations anymore, they’re so 19th century. 🤡
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.
What evidence am I supposed to provide here, exactly? I’m asking for clarification.
Memes. Look at their username.
The books Marx wrote are the evidence. If you read them then you’d see why they are obviously relevant today. Of course, reading and understanding serious literature takes more effort than trolling on public forums.
Are there any modern books which talk about the same/similar contents which are easier/smaller for a beginner to start?
These books are fairly accessible and touch on a lot of the same ideas you’d find in seminal works like Das Kapital
Thank you
It’s always hilarious when illiterates proceed to make clowns of themselves by discussing things they haven’t read.