#1,191 in Business & money books
Reddit mentions of Das Kapital: A Critque of Political Economy
Sentiment score: 2
Reddit mentions: 11
We found 11 Reddit mentions of Das Kapital: A Critque of Political Economy. Here are the top ones.
or
- Great product!
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 10 inches |
| Length | 7.01 inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Weight | 0.79 Pounds |
| Width | 0.43 inches |
https://www.amazon.com/Das-Kapital-Critque-Political-Economy/dp/145388632X
That's just my interpretation.
I'd recommend reading Das Kapital by Marx and Engels. It's not too heavy going and gives an insight into how they envisaged communism turning out, rather than how it did.
It's been a long time since I read it and I'm sure my interpretation would change if I read it again.
yeah i'd highly suggest a physical copy, I got this version. It's decent.
For the second half I'd recommend Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici as a good starting point. It's going to respond to a lot of other thinkers, including Marx, so it can be a good starting point for further investigation on all the subjects I mentioned.
The first half isn't going to be the thesis of any works that I know of; but more of a truism that appears throughout a ton of works. I'll respond in part with an explanation and recommend some basic readings that might flesh out the ideas more.
The word "economy" comes from the Greek "oikos" meaning "home" and "nomos" meaning which refers to the function of it. It's very similar to the word "ecology" which is the combination of "oikos" and "logos", or the logic of the home. As a result, for the ancient Greeks, "economy" referred to the functioning of the household. The house and surrounding land in Athens was referred to a "demo" and constituted a single economic unit run by a single family. A government built with these units was called a "democracy", or a nation of "demos". You can read more about this in The Ancient City by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges to understand the basic terms and theories going into the structures of our society today, which are based heavily on the ancient Greek language and understanding of the world (as the article above indicates as well).
A fun book that discusses the theme of economics and the formation of society is Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. It's not full of references or citations, but more of a thought experiment on the subject that I think lays some good groundwork for understanding some of the motivations for the creation of a society. A more specific analysis on the goals and aspirations of an economy can be found in the general cannon, like Smith's Wealth of Nations and the critical response from Marx in Das Kapital. These are both introductory texts on the subject and a little outdated of course. If you want a more contemporary understanding of economic systems and what they do today, I'd recommend Wolff's Contending Economic Theories. These books aren't about why economies come first in society (other than the Genealogy of Morals), but they are a knowledge foundation as to why societies are organized in order to create an economy.
What economics? Like this?
Has anyone read this edition? Is this a good one?
http://www.amazon.com/Das-Kapital-Karl-Marx/dp/145388632X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422219181&sr=1-1&keywords=das+kapital
Hey u/mlg_Kaiser, we fixed
yourour post>our copy is.
we are a bot
Marx. Das Kapital.
You should read it. Because you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
And then after that, there's a good bit more research you need to do into the nature of capitalism and markets and poverty. Particularly you need to look into success of development programs, and what has worked, and what has not worked to bring people out of poverty in a resource effective way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital:_Critique_of_Political_Economy
He's the wiki for Das Kapital.
https://www.amazon.com/Das-Kapital-Critque-Political-Economy/dp/145388632X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518369337&sr=8-1&keywords=das+kapital+english&dpID=517xQUomVTL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch
There you can buy a copy on Amazon for 10 bucks. It's not easy to read, unfortunately, because Marx was overly influenced by Hegelian Dialectics. It's fucking dense, and it's a bit of a slow read. You should read it anyways.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/vinod-khosla-microlending-end-poverty
Here's an article on micro lending and how effective it has been in creating small entrepreneurial startups among the desperately poor in the developing world, and gave agency and poverty relief especially to women.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3065011/in-afghanistan-cash-has-become-the-most-effective-form-of-aid
https://news.stanford.edu/2016/03/08/cash-effect-insurgencies-030816/
https://www.cidi.org/how-disaster-relief-works/monetary-contributions-work-bestwhy-cash-is-best/#.WoCE7ufauUk
Here's a bunch of articles talking about why cash is such an effective form of aid.
It literally improves the local economy instead of dismantling it, which means everyone's livelihood is more secure and more productive than if you bring in direct resources.
But sure, keep pretending I'm the ignorant one, you fucking sack of shit.
> WTF are you talking about, you condescending asshole? Do you really think I don't know the difference between Marx and Putin? Because I'm not your doctrinaire reddit liberal I must be some kind of ignoramus? Fuck you.
No, in that context you'd be an idiot (who uses ignoramus, really?) because you're a liberal. But, no, you're an idiot because you say stupid things; your political and economic leanings have very little to do with it (though they are often indicative of intelligence in and of themselves).
> If you'd like to read a good book on Marx (and Lenin and Stalin), I'd suggest starting with The Rise and Fall of Communism by Archie Brown.
Any book that conflates Marx with Lenin or Stalin is fundamentally flawed, given the vast differences in their philosophy. I suggest you read Communist Manifesto and Das Capital.
I'd also point out that Neo-Marxism is alive and well and ruling in the majority of the first world.
> And my point stands. If /r/socialism always takes the side of Putin's Russia against the West, can he really be a Republican-style conservative?
I'm a Socialist. I disagree with the vast majority of things /r/socialism says. Surprisingly, /r/socialism doesn't speak for all socialists or socialist movements, any more than /r/conservative speaks for all conservatives or /r/communism speaks for Marxists (in fact, this one is doubly true, /r/communism should be better called /r/bolshevism or /r/stalinism).
Either way, not a single front-page post even mentions Putin, and in fact a trivial search of the forum indeed shows a large number of anti-Putin posts, not surprising given that Putin's political philosophy is closer to Fascism than Socialism. Either way, Putin isn't left-wing, nor is he right-wing. His views are largely fascist, and therefore don't fit into the Left-Right spectrum in the first place; there's a reason fascists referred to themselves as 'the third way'. So, your basic premise, regardless of how irrelevant it is, is also highly flawed in that it is fundamentally incorrect.
> If complying with the law results in profit, the company will comply. If it results in loss, the company will not comply
That's the whole point of law. Cause and effect. That is what most people on this planet called preventative. Congratulation for discovering the basic concept of law, though taking a long winded road to it. You are still extremely confused about it though.
> The next time somebody comes to kill you go ahead and hold that law out in front of you and see if it stops a bullet or a knife blade. Then we'll see who is living in reality.
What the fuck are you talking about? Law isn't a physical object you moron. How the fuck are you going to "hold that law" out in the first place? The fact that law is in place deters people from coming to my place and trying that in the first place.
> Well my society isn't lawless, so I find this to be a moot point.
Laws in your society is fucking useless and thus lawless. Law in your society is no different commandments from the Bible.
> Whose repercussions? The governments?
Yes. Governments prevent me from hitting your face.
> I could fly to your house, punch you in the face, leave immediately, and if your lucky an officer might take your statement.
Yea, do that. I have cameras set up that provides enough evidence for the officer to hunt you down. Obviously the threat of being in jail (criminal law) doesn't deter you from hitting people but it deters you from cheating taxes (tax law). You contradict even yourself.
> You've placed me in a situation where I am forced to concede property in order to protect my freedoms or my life.
No shit moron. I'm place in a situation where I am forced to not punch you in order to protect the freedom of my life. This is the whole point of the law. You don't like to concede property, I don't like to not punch your face. But we both have to follow the law due to repercussions.
> I must give money to the government or I lose more money, freedom (prison), or death.
Yes. That is the law and thus it prevents you from trying to not pay tax. See how preventative it is? It works because it has repercussions. This is an example of law preventing you from acting out a behaviour (not paying tax).
> Explain to me how a mugger with a gun to your head ("Your money or your life") is different from taxation.
LMFAO, every idiotic libertarian always trot out this bullshit like it's on automatic playback. Explain to me how a mugger with a gun to your head ("Your money or your life") is different from paying rent to your landlord.
> You used a word made up by a comedian with a satirical political show to insult my argument
Yes, that's the point. Your arguments are based upon nothing but GUT INSTINCT. What you lack in knowledge, you made up in confidence. That word, "truthiness", describes you extremely well.
> It's an insult made up by a different person.
It can't be an insult when it is true. Calling a fat overweight person "fat" is not an insult. Likewise with you. You are IGNORANT and you WANT TO and LIKE TO remain IGNORANT.
> These types of law do not prevent anything.
Holy fuck you are dumb. Two sentences ago you admit to having to pay tax. The tax laws prevents you from cheating tax. That's what it prevents. The environmental laws prevent companies from polluting due to financial disincentives. That's what it prevents.
> Tort law is by definition only relevant to disputes. Two parties who settle their differences on their own are completely outside the purview of the law. The case must be brought to court before the law applies.
No you dumb idiot. Tort laws specified a companies or a person can be fined for misconduct. THis is made aware to everyone and thus prevent people and companies in engaging in misconducts.
> You moved the goal posts here.
Wrong. 1+1 is not 5.
I said laws encompasses MANY (M for Mary, A for Asshole, N for nelly, Y for Yellow). MANY, not ALL (A for Asshole, L for Lily, L for Lily) but MANY. See how I have to spell it out for you?
> That's largely irrelevant though, seeing as you missed the point entirely and provided a faulty example of your own point.
Er no dumb ass. I didn't miss my own point. I set the point and you missed it and interpret into something else. You purposely moved the goal post and you blame me for missing my own point. Do you see how fucking stupid you are?
> In your example the law recognizes marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals.
Yep, support both set of moralities - people who hates gay, and gay people who want to be recognized as couple.
> What if I believe gays shouldn't have civil unions? What if I believe marriage should be outlawed? What if I believe government recognition of union, marriage or civil, should be banned? Maybe only gays should be allowed to marry.
So fucking what? What you show is only an example of a subset of ethics.
> The law can only support ONE ethical and moral outcome.
Nope. It supports many morality and ethics. It takes some from each group. Do you understand SET Theory? Each morality and ethics contains a set of beliefs. For example, Morality of person A has { BeliefA1, BeliefA2, BeliefA3, ...} Morality of person B has { BeliefB1, BeliefB2, BeliefA3, ...}
The law accommodate some beliefs from each morality. It is an intersection of belief sets. It never has to accommodate ALL beliefs from everybody or one set of the other beliefs.
> You repeatedly ignore my attempts to provide detailed resources that explain how a DRO type system might form in order to enforce law.
NO! ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION IN YOUR OWN WORDS
I'm not going to waste time and read your bullshit if you never bother to pick up a book and read about the core concept of the legal systems and the foundation of human civilizations.
> Once again: The Machinery of Freedom
Yea, read these first: Concept of law, Republic, The Prince, Das Kapital, History of Civilization
Yea read those books first and understand that you are a complete fucking moron, before you even suggest to me to read your filthy masturbatory junk literature.
You've purposely throughout this ENTIRE conversation dropped arguments you cannot addressed. You are ignorant and are intellectually dishonest with me as well as yourself.
Fuck man, you're like a child with a leaking diaper. You purposely dropped so many fucking points that inconvenient the way you think in your shitty bubble of alternative reality.
> so I'm done arguing this point with you.
Meh, I don't really give a fuck in continuing this conversation with a wilful moron, who is most likely a shittiest of engineer, whose ideology is nothing but a fucking fairy tale for adults.
This is not a conspiracy. This is a r/politics self post if they didn't do link only.
Well then I think this is a good time to plug Das Kapital. Marx would definitely approve of you just reading the entire thing online
> Arguing that capitalism would create an ever-increasing division in wealth and welfare, he predicted its abolition and replacement by a system with common ownership of the means of production.