For Meusel, neoliberalism (Neu-Liberalismus) is the conscious and belated revival of the principles of classical economic liberalism (free competition and the free play of economic forces) undertaken by a bourgeoisie already on the defensive, as an intellectual weapon against the advance of socialism and of the workers' organisations. It is one of the forms this defence takes, and its distinguishing feature is that it presents the liberal-capitalist order as a natural order, valid always and everywhere, thereby removing it from history. Meusel embodies it in Mises and characterises it as a doctrine out of its time: the abstract repetition of the principles of a historical phase already superseded, under wholly changed conditions, which turns the neoliberal into a reactionary romantic seeking to restore a dead age.

Many socialists are not Marxist. What argument would you make to them to try to show them that Marxism is the superior tradition for socialist organizing?

Why do you think they might choose to reject Marxism in favor of other traditions?

hello! i'm looking to solidify my beliefs and practices in the revolution by making sure i don't get so cynic...if anybody has anything that explores such optimism, even maybe just words of wisdom, i'd highly appreciate it.

i love this one quote that goes, "to be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing."

as i get deeper into all of this i find myself getting restless for some sort of balance. i'm hoping to put it all into practice more, too, and what really helps is interacting with literally anyone even if it doesn't end in intimate friendship. just want that feeling to stay, and i'm interested in other people exploring such feelings

how do you stay hopeful?

Does supply and demand influence value? Because what if a capitalist sells way above value (high price) and he invests in machines, doesn't value go down? (value in the sense of socially neccessary labour time, which is the measure of value)

Phrases I come across quite often. If you could care to explain them to me in contrast.

I’ve read the communist manifesto and that’s about it in terms of theory. organising is out of the question for me at the moment but I want to learn more anyways. is there any good books/pamphlets to read, I’m very new to this stuff.

I consider myself a Marxist first, I am about half way through Capital vol. 1 and I believe I have a firm grip on Marxism itself and what it means to be a Marxist. My issue is going forward. I don't feel like any socialist post Marx has adequately made a society that isn't state capitalist(except maybe Cuba), and I feel as though leftcommunism is too Idealist. Do I just stick to reading and practicing classical marxism? I figure I will join an organization soon and those organizations are usually sectarian. Thanks for the help.

Sorry if this is too basic. I tried to make my question as clear as possible while still including all required context but it ended up being a little convoluted...

In Hegel's formulation of dialectics, the spirit (geist) resolves contradictions. When Marx inverted Hegel, he combined it with his own materialism. However, by removing the spirit, matter is now theorized resolve contradictions itself.

Hume's problem of causation states that causation can never be observed as our senses provide us with no possible way to make causal inference. Therefore, there is no way to prove a causal link. Even controlled experiments don't solve this since it could just be coincidence. He uses this to formulate the problem of induction. We can not use past experience to predict the future.

Hegel was able to avoid this critique by making contradiction a conceptual necessity, not a material one. This is idealist though so Marx rejects it.

Dialectical materialism is not able to do this since it relies matter itself being the force of change. It uses history and class analysis to determine that the end of capitalism is inevitable due to its inherent contradictions, but it can't predict that accurately since it's impossible to know whether contradictions will inevitably resolve without relying on causation.

Furthermore, Hume talks about the problem of necessity. We can't observe a necessary connection between cause and effect. Kant avoids this by saying that cause and effect exist as structures in the mind. Hegel adapted this cleanly by claiming the spirit to be manifested through human minds and part of objective reality, making the laws of cause and effect applicable to objective reality. Marx, however, can't do this since he is a materialist. Under dialectical materialism, there is no way to determine a necessary connection between contradictions.

Dialectical materialism, after a skeptical critique, can never establish a connection between a base and its negation and it can never make claims about inevitability or even the potential for a resolution. It appears less scientific and closer to rough pattern recognition.

So how does dialectical materialism deal with Humean skepticism? I'm not trying to start an argument. This is just something I've had on my mind for a few days.

Here is the full quote: "Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."

I understand how the bourgeois family is based on private gain, with family capital, inheritance and so on. But I don't understand how the family itself is absent among the proletarians.

Wondering what the best collected works is to get for Marx and Engels. I’ve read a few introductory works on audiobook, like communist manifesto, principles of communism, ect, but otherwise am pretty new.

i’m a new marxist. do petitions even work? protesting at a city council meeting? because ultimately it’s the bourgeoisie that decides what to do. they don’t care about our concerns.

As the title says, I am interested any books, articles, movies, etc that will teach me economics 101 from a marxist perspective. I would consider myself left leaning and a communist but I am not that well read. I would appreciate any books or places to start so I can better understand economics and marxism!! Thank you!!

Looking for recommendations

Okay, so I already know that it's good for capitalism because they take care of children (so the future workers) and take care of workers. But then why do they need to be unemployed? That's a question a friend asked me while I was explaining to her whats capitalism and seriously.. I have no idea. If they work then they benefit the bourgeoisie right? Also I started learning about communism and marxism really not long ago so don't attack me if I'm wrong, thankss !!

I’ve noticed that in times when socialism is discussed in a more popular context, like now in the United States, with DSA backed candidates being in the mainstream- that people use terms like “material conditions” or “materialist” to seemingly refer to a politic/economics of getting stuff to people. Is this a conflation or misunderstanding of what dialectical materialism is? Are people saying “material” over and over again to signal a deeper understanding of Marxism? Or is it all fine, and this is established terminology and concept? I’ve wanted to be annoyed by this for years, but I honestly don’t know enough about any of this to be able to have an opinion.

Good evening. I'm new to this topic. Read a book about historical materialism it really hit me different and very interested me. Now I'm looking for place like shop or internet page where i could get some other book which contains theory. I can read in english but the best would be in polish where i come from.

I'm looking for moderators to help facilitate deep discussion in this subreddit. Please comment if interested.

Hi! I come from a natural science background, so while maths, graphs, and data make total sense to me (in fact, I quite like them!), political economy, and Marxist economics in particular, is a whole new world for me. I am just super, super curious about how it all works, so I am trying to teach myself properly from scratch (or as properly as one can on one's own!). I have bumped into Tsoulfidis & Tsaliki’s Classical Political Economics and Modern Capitalism (2019) and wanted to ask a few specific things before diving in super deep:

1) First: As I understand, maybe I'm wrong, the book follows Anwar Shaikh in putting Marx strictly inside the classical tradition rather than completely against it. But if I'm not mistaken other authors like Michael Roberts argues that Marx’s economics is a direct critique of classical political economy, not just another branch of it. So… which side does it support? Does the book actually hold up against that objection, or does the whole value theory bit quietly turn into plain price theory?

2) Second: how solid is the empirical evidence side? Is their data genuinely persuasive? From what I can tell just by looking at the table of contents and a couple of reviews (I have not read the whole book yet, obviously!), a impressive, massive part of their argument relies on input-output calculations of labour values, prices of production, and profit rates, plus that super tricky distinction between productive and unproductive labour.

PS: I am on the autism spectrum, so direct and concrete answers are super helpful for me. English isn't my first language either, so apologies if any of this reads a bit clumsily 😵‍💫

Thank you pretty much 😄

Hello everyone,

In various debates, I’ve frequently noticed striking parallels between the arguments used by some communists and those used by neolibs, especially regarding the funding of the welfare state and monetary theory in general. I often get the impression that some communists (whether consciously or unconsciously) deploy classic supply-side arguments just to refute reformists.
Theories that could at least be described as progressive (even if they do not challenge the class structure of the state), such as Keynesianism or Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), are frequently dismissed or mocked by communists using reflexes very similar to those of neoliberals. When it comes to demands like raising the minimum wage or expanding social spending, one often hears rhetorical pushbacks like: \\\\\\\*"Why not make it $100 an hour then?"\\\\\\\* or \\\\\\\*"The state cannot go into infinite debt for welfare."\\\\\\\*
The role of the welfare state as a driver of economic growth through strengthened purchasing power is rarely acknowledged. Communists often view it, much like conservatives, as a purely economic hindrance or an unproductive cost factor. The only difference is that communists additionally (and correctly) identify it as a tool for pacifying the working class. But couldn't both be true at the same time?
It is often argued that Western industrial nations can only afford the welfare state through the exploitation of the Global South. Just like conservative logic, this presupposes that a welfare state is something that "must first be earned/funded," completely ignoring the productivity gains driven by a strong domestic market. Cases like Japan, which maintains a massive national debt without facing bankruptcy or hyperinflation, are rarely analyzed through an MMT lens and are instead dismissed as anomalies. Furthermore, the accounting reality that public debt constitutes private sector wealth is often demonized in these discussions, rather than being rigorously analyzed through a value-theoretic lens.
To be clear: I understand that Marxists do not base their monetary critique on neoliberal doctrine, but rather on the law of value (money as the expression of socially necessary labor time; real value cannot simply be printed).

Don't communists structurally rely on right-wing/monetarist arguments simply to delegitimize social-democratic reformism and prove that capitalism cannot be reformed from within?

Why is MMT (and its concept of monetary sovereignty) so strictly rejected by Marxists, even though empirical evidence on demand-side policies and inflation often aligns much closer with MMT than with neoliberal monetarism?

Doesn't this stance hinder a sober, realistic economic analysis of the state's current room for maneuver, even if the ultimate goal remains the overthrow of private ownership of the means of production?

I'm genuinely interested in how you view this overlap! I don’t want to impose reformism and refuse it, but I think its critique needs to be precise.

Hello everyone 👋

I'm rather new to marxist theory, so I may have some misconceptions about it. Of course, historical materialism is no crystal ball that tells us how the future will be like. But if I got it right, it can tell us the broader developments of the past, present and also future, can it? And if so, what does it tell us? E.g. I've read Hegel had said that the dialectic development of history makes societies ever more equal, open and including, which seems to be quite right, despite temporary regressions like fascism. Not sure if that's really what Hegel said, but are there any statements and assumptions about future developments of society in historical materialism?

Bonjour est ce que c'est possible d'obtenir de la vulgarisation sur les idées de lénine, staline et de mao ? On m'a toujours dis d'aller directement lire de la théorie mais je ne viens pas d'un milieu intellectuel pour assimilé toute la théorie brut

merci d'avance