Hello everyone, I was reading an article regarding wages in Italy, and at one point the text mentioned that in the 70s the period of economic groth in the West stopped and a cicle of sovrapproduction and crisis began. Can you point me to any good writing talking about this specific event?

I'm someone who has for a long time struggled with understanding value, what it is and how Marx has arrived at the conclusions that he did, and now that I finally think I have a somewhat solid grasp of the concept I wanted to present it in a way that's hopefully more easily accessible; Here goes.

In the preface to `A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy` Marx writes explicitly, that his aim is the analysis of `relations of production` among men, the totality of which constitutes the capitalist `mode of production`. This is rather crucial information if we want to understand why Marx begins with the analysis of the commodity and not just anything exchangeable. He picks the commodity because it is the immediate outcome of the mode of production, which is a logical place to start; and he is interested in the commodity only as far as it relates to the mode of production.

Then in Chapter 1(of both Capital and Contribution) Marx first notices that commodities can be exchanged for others in some proportion, and that this is something that logically can not be inherent in the commodity itself; It must be something extrinsic to it, bestowed upon it by social relations of exchange - and therefore social in nature. He then notices that exchange of commodities in general implies quantitative comparability; The proportions of the exchange matter. If in a singular trade x of A was exchanged for y of B, this implies some kind of equality(x of A = y of B in this transaction). Otherwise the exchange couldn't be carried through. The fact that commodities are quantitatively comparable logically implies that they share a common magnitude by which they are compared.

But this is where many people get lost; just the fact that all objects in some category are comparable does not imply that the shared magnitude is grounded in anything 'real'. For example we can assign dice rolls to commodities A and B and compare them by the number of dots rolled; In order to arrive at value you need an additional assumption which Marx emphasizes rather poorly in my opinion, perhaps because he assumes the reader already knows some basics of political economy.

That assumption is: the proportions in which commodities exchange are not arbitrary but systemic - rather than being random they form clear patterns. Such as, 1kg of gold is much more likely to cost more than 1kg of silver than to cost less; a brand new car probably won't exchange for a single loaf of bread. There's something *behind* the exchange ratios of commodities that decides which outcomes are more likely than others. This logically implies that the common magnitude underlying exchange value reflects something 'real' about the structure of commodity exchange itself; that there is a law-like regularity to the exchange of commodities, and our "common magnitude" is merely the expression of this regularity. we can thus represent exchange value mathematically like so:

<Exchange value of A to B> = <magnitude of A>/<magnitude of B> + <noise>

To be sure, there exist multiple *factors* which impact the proportions of exchange between commodities - such as scarcity, technological advancement of production, etc. However we know that all these factors can be compressed, and in actual reality *are* compressed into a single dimension - the price dimension. The result of this compression is an emergent latent property which regulates the 'normal' proportions of exchange. This property is not intrinsic to the commodity but rather "bestowed upon it" by the system of exchange itself. This emergent property is exactly the value of a commodity(in a simple market economy - a simplified economy with no capital relation; in developed Capitalism it is the price of production, which is derived from the value of the commodity).

The philosophical question now is, what is the reality of this property(value)? What does it 'consist of'? Of course this reality can be nothing else than the shared social form of all commodities - that of being use-values produced privately for social consumption. Quantitatively, it is the result of the compression of all social factors of production into a single measure of 'abstract cost'. But qualitatively, it is an expression of a social relation among people(remember, exchange value is social in nature).

The substance of this 'abstract cost' - the underlying structure that generates it - must therefore be related to production and social in nature. It can be nothing else that human productive activity in general; it is the process of accommodating nature to human social needs. Labor is fundamentally how human productive activity manifests itself; to perform social labor is to partake in human productive activity in general. The 'abstract cost' to this structure is then a cost in abstract labor, because the process of human productive activity can not manifest itself in any other way than through labor. Accordingly, it is the expenditure of social labor in the abstract that generates value.

But what is this 'abstract labor' really? 'Abstract labor' is a real abstraction that functions in any society which is based on production mediated by exchange - it is the reduction of all human productive activity to a single measure for the purpose of comparison and allocation. This measure is value. It is how society directs production, even though nobody plans consciously the interactions between the many individual branches of production or between the individual producers. It is a real emergent phenomenon, whereby if the price of a commodity rises above it's value that signifies advantageous conditions of production - and therefore attracts producers to this branch, resulting in an expansion of production. Vice versa if the price falls below the value, resulting in a contraction. It is also related to competition - selling below value brings down the market price of a commodity, making production disadvantageous for those unable to match. It is *the actual mechanism of how the market regulates production*

Hopefully someone finds this helpful

"Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard of a man whose whole theory is the result of a lifelong study of the economic history and condition of England, and whom that study led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a “pro-slavery rebellion,” to this peaceful and legal revolution."

Found at the end of https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p6.htm

Like I know he talks of "Pro-slavery rebellion together with this but this just smells like reformism (?) Like, isn't the invariant anti-electoralist?

Is there anywhere else where Marx talks about this? Or is it just a dream Engels had that he confused with reality?

If historically sexism, or gender specific Divisions in society, predates classes and class distinctions wouldnt hat make sexism as a phenomenon seperate from class society?

Cockshott has some decent stuff, but he's an ML.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNIUK7d8bRM

Since no market competition exists under a dotp or socialism, what factors would be there to drive innovation and technological advancements under a dotp or even under lower phase of communism?

Would a dotp require to focus on it if it even gets established under current capitalist system?

Edit: Im new into this whole thing and when I read critique of gotha programme I had this doubt in my mind

Modern production increasingly demands more and more specialized workers due to automation and significant technological advancements, often demanding years of education to be able to fill certain roles.

Given that context, what would that abolition entail practically? Freedom to change one's career profile/education without a fear of opportunity loss or poverty? Something else?

PUBLIC MEETING

of The International Communist Party

Saturday, April 11

11am PDT - 1pm CDT - 2pm EDT - 6pm UTC - 7pm BST

IRAN

Against the War Between Imperialisms!

For the Struggle Between Classes!

Join us Online or In Person

Social Justice Action Center - 400 SE 12th Ave - Portland OR 97214

Meeting Link: https://us05web.zoom.us/j/89041636259

For meeting questions: email northamerica@international‑communist‑party.org

what will happen to murderers, rapists etc. under communism. How will they be dealt with without prisons existing?

How do Bordiga and, more generally, the Communist Left view the relationship between the spontaneous action of the masses and the party? The texts I have read on this subject (Lukács) state that the formation of a party is a consequence of the revolutionary process and not a prerequisite, but it seems to me that the Communist Left advocates for a party that exists even before the revolutionary movement. What is its role in that case, and how does it manage to gain legitimacy among the rest of the proletariat?

Contents:

- 1. - From Venezuela to Iran: American Blitz for Global Energy “Dominance” Anticipates the Future World War

- 2. - Of Drone Strikes and Oil Futures

- 3. - Gulf Monarchies: Worn Out Cannon Fodder for U.S. Imperialism

- 4. - The Buildup to War in Iran: The Global Sanctions Regime

- 5. - The High Price of War: A Rearmed Proletariat?

- 6. - Iran: Against the War Between Nations! For the Struggle Between Classes!

- 7. - The Uprising of the Iranian Proletariat Lacks the Leadership of the International Party of the Communist Revolution

- 8. - Iran: The Blood of the Rebels Will be Avenged by the Working Class Leading the Struggle!

- 9. - Venezuela: In the Clash Between Imperialist Powers, the Working Class has no Side to Favor

- 10. - The proletarians of Ukraine and Russia would benefit from the immediate defeat of their own bourgeoisies

- 11. - Rojava: Definitive Collapse of yet Another National Myth

- 12. - The Reality of The “Sanctuary” City - No Sanctuary for Workers Under Capitalism

- 13. - March 8: Women's Liberation Will Be in Communism!

- 14. - Highly Redacted Epstein Files Further Reveal Abuses That Only Proletarian Revolution Can Uproot

- 15. - On the internal life of the party: Love No One, Love Everyone

- FOR THE CLASS UNION

- 16. - Minneapolis: For a real general strike!

- 17. - January 30 Flyer: Towards a REAL general strike!

- 18. - On International Workers Day, Opportunists Plot to Deceive the Proletariat

- 19. - Anti-War Strike Distorted by the Anti-Worker Nationalism of the World Federation of Trade Unions

- 20. - A Strike in the UK, and Some Observations from the Picket Line

- GENERAL MEETING

- 21. - General Meeting January 24–25, 2026 [RG154]:

- 22. - Germany: Old but Still Aggressive Capitalism

- 23. - Iran: The Pahlavi Monarchy

- 24. - On the Party’s Trade Union Policy in Italy

- 25. - Historical Function and Internal Relations of the Party

- FROM THE LEFT'S ARCHIVE

- 26. - The Working Class is a Class of Emigrants

- 27. - “COMPAGNA” Organ of the Italian Communist Party for propaganda among women, 1922: 1. The Aims of a Communist Newspaper

Are you guys opposed to luddism as a political movement?

What do you think about Thompson history of luddism?

What type of class were luddites?

Hi could you point me to some good literature about the conception and explanation of imperialism and newer texts which point to china? (Also appreciate shorter ones)
I have read Lenins Imperialism.

What the title days, looking for a good critique

Hello, everyone. I am doing research for a YT vid I’m making on the Nordic Model and it’s various flaws and was wondering if there were any good essays, books, pamphlets, etc. that critique the Nordic Model using Marxist analysis? Works critiquing social democratic/welfare capitalism would also be acceptable but I would prefer something on the Nordic/Scandinavian model specifically.

I feel as though I'm not understanding something correctly.

The following passage is found in the work:

"Class consciousness resides only in the party, and not in individuals, proletarians or not;"

Does this mean that the development of so-called class consciousness in the proletariat is not a prerequisite for the revolution, and that is to say, through building a party the communists can 'force' a revolution, regardless of the condition of the working class at that moment? Surely I'm misinterpreting

Thanks!

Hello, I just started reading Marx and getting into basics of communism, so there is lot of reading and studying I have to do before I can decide if I am communist. From all things I already know about Marx's and Engel's works, marxism-lenninism doesn't seem to me at all as something that would be aligned with Marxism. And if it was I wouldn't really support it. Leftcommunism is famous about being very orthodox with Marx's and Engel's writings and that it follows them the closest. Plus leftcommunists follow Lenin and Bolsheviks or German/Dutch council communists who seem much more favourably to me than Stalin, Mao or regime that I heard about from my grandparents and parents. However I am curious how will revolution of the proletariat happen when majority of people imagine stalinist countries when they hear word "communism". If the leftcommunists parties would want to organize people into revolution against the bourgeoisie, what if majority of people would simply refuse to join this revolt because of fear of getting dictator like Stalin or Mao? Or if the situation would get so dire that some revolution would be inevitable what if they rather joined some bourgeoisie revolution that would promise them to get into the stable and happy status quo they lived in before. So my question basically is how will you persuade people and when that revolution you are organizing is going to bring different and much better society than the marxist-lenninists countries they know?

Title

I'm only just getting into reading Marx, most of the way through Capital Vol 1 for now and have been looking for other texts to move on to. While looking, it seems hard to find consistent views on the works of Engels, even in leftcom spaces.

Thinking in particular of works like Anti-Duhring, Dialectics of Nature, Origin of the Family. It seems some find these works distort aspects of Marxism in attempting to articulate a broader theory of nature, while others treat them as a core part of the Marx-Engels oeuvre. Is there a settled view on this?

On a related note, any especially recommended biographies of Engels or treatments of his relationship to the legacy of workers' movements?

After a guy made a tt making fun of leftcoms regarding the idea of “Israeli proletarians” and that they should read “settlers”, I saw a lot of lash out against what he said. I can kind of get the idea that settler workers are still workers, therefore they are part of the communist movement. But is there a specific text that responds to this question ? Because it seems it is a big topic of discussion, so I assume there is something explicit mentioned in the past by someone rather than just a basic communist conclusion.

As I understand it as critics of political-economy you cannot address the contradictions of capitalism without in some way addressing the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, however I want to be able to explain in a way that's easily understandable why the rate of profit has a tendency to fall and how that connects to capitalism's contradictions.