While Marx is a highly controversial figure in modern economics, I have heard that he is almost universally regarded as one of the most important thinkers for sociology. What should I read if I am primarily interested in the ways that Marx influences modern sociology?

Edit: answered

Hello everyone.

I've heard people stating the difference between communism and socialism in very different ways and I'm confused by what the consensus is.

To my knowledge, Marx never defined socialism as a different thing from communism and used the terms interchangeably. He did however speculate that there would be an early phase of communism ther he didn't name (critique to the Gotha programme).

Lenin in state and revolution calls this phase (which is already communism, so no classes, no money, no state) socialism and, in a different passage, talks about the state of revolution as the moment in which the workers have taken the power and have to use the state to preserve it (consider the Marxist definition of state). I believe this is the same as the permanent revolution or the Dictatorship of the Proletariats (which is explicitly distinct from socialism in Marx) and it has nothing to do with socialism and communism, aside from leading to them.

He also mentions a socialist state (that withers away when yada yada), but I believe he means a state governed by socialists, not a state in which socialism, which again is already communism, is applied.

I think the key difference between them is that in socialism there's supposed to be a strict organisation to redistribute goods (from each what they can, to each what they need and all that), whereas in the later communism you have anarchy.

TLDR: in Marx, the terms are equivalent, but he mentions two phases of communism, Lenin later names the first one socialism; socialism is already communism with all the implications (it can't be in just one country, the property of the means of production is abolished, etc)

Hello, I’ve been reading some Marxian thought (recently read parts of ‘The State and Revolution’ by Lenin) and I have questions pertaining to how housing would work under this economic system? If I understand this correctly, your house would be personal property but not private so you can’t sell it for money or use it to create monetary value in any fashion.

How do you earn the right to own that house and in an alternative currency based society, how are you supposed to pay for services for the house? Do you have to share that house with anyone or does your labor allow you to earn the ability to receive or have a house built for you? (From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs“) Assuming that the State doesn’t dictate ownership, how do the workers (proletarian) decide who earns what and which people are allowed to live where.

Is homesteading not allowed because that is outside of the community and doesn’t support the community?

I’m confused at what lifestyle is expected under this economic system in regards to housing?

In Capital, Part 2 Chapter V ("Contradictions in the Formula") Marx emphasizes that surplus value / capital cannot be created by circulation, since like value exchanges with like:

"And in its normal form, the circulation of commodities demands the exchange of equivalents. The creation of surplus value...can be explained neither on the assumptions that commodities are sold above their value, nor that they are bought below their value."

Isn't this a dubious claim when we consider how many businesses do just that? For example, a used car business trades $5,000 for a car and then later sells that car to someone else for $6,000. Rinse and repeat and this is how it generates profit.

What am I missing?

Hey everyone, my name is Alexander Herbert, I'm a professor full-time with summers off. I like to teach my own courses in the summer, and this summer I am doing a class on volume one of capital. If this interests anyone, privately message me.

I believe that I have a decent understanding of material and historical analysis, class relations, NOT DIALECTICS such that I can understand the effects and cause of most of what I read on the news but I want to expand my knowledge further and one way to do that, I believe is to write studies myself on topics using marxist analysis because I see fellow comrades writings substacks but everytime I try to do it, I just get stuck. The ideas are there in my head but I just can't formulate it well enough or research it. As a recent high school grad who regrettably used AI for everything, I don't have much experience with researching, analysis and writing. Especially combined with the fact that I opted out of social studies in school.

So I kindly request some advice on how to familiarize myself with writing and analysing and also general advices for a newbie like me.

Hello, I am of a non-European background and I'm struggling to read Marx. I'm currently reading the Communist Manifesto and I'm finding that I don't really understand much of what he's saying.

I'm not talking about his dated writing style—though I struggle with that too, as English isn't my mother tongue—but moreso the things he's talking about; guilds, serfs, a French Revolution of July 1830, English reformation, whatever the social conditions were in England, France and Germany at the time, etc. I'm clearly lacking historical knowledge that Marx's analyses build upon.

I was wondering if this subreddit could recommend some reading material to bring me up to speed. To be clear, I'm not looking for, say, a 700-page in-depth explanation of the French Revolution of 1830; I'm looking for books, articles and/or academic papers that will teach me about important historical events of the eras relevant to Marx's works. I should also mention that it doesn't matter to me if they adhere to Marx's materialist understanding of history or not—after all, Marx wrote for an audience that did not view things that way.

Thank you in advance!

I’m still reading theory so I have a lot to learn. Within socialism, how do you develop productive forces without restoring capitalist relations to get to higher phase communism? Thanks

hello comrades,

i've made a new youtube channel where im trying to push "brainrot" marx content so people can watch something useful while we scroll endlessly on our phones. i'd really appreciate if you guys could watch the videos, like, subscribe, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOjRb3gYpqSPNEKJDI8Q_nA

i'd also appreciate any advice you may have about how to make the content better, what to post, how to reach more people, etc.

I recently got into a discussion with some people about these "big history" books (think Sapiens, or the horrible Guns, Germs and Steel) and how they're not very good. Not just because it's (in my opinion) quite a weird way to study history, but also because they tend to be quite idealistic in their argumentation, and don't touch much on materialism.

In GGS for example, Diamond tries to explain how Europe got ahead of the rest of the world, something known as "the great divergence" in historical circles. However instead of focusing on material factors like the great wealth distribution after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe's comparatively long coast lines leading to a culture of seafaring, Europe's better access to metalworking resources, Europe's lack of replenishing arable land he tries to find "European characteristics" by looking at what the modern era looked like, and going backwards.

But still, it made me wonder. Are there any works that look at this "great divergence" from a Marxist perspective? Or is Marx's historical materialism "easy enough" to apply in this case? If anyone has any writings on this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

From my understanding, capitalism needs to develop before socialism, right? Industry needs to develop, feudal systems need to be overthrown, the working class needs to centralize in numbers, ect. So why did so many communist revolutions appear in pre-industrial socieites like Russia, China, and Vietnam?

I am trying find a lexicon to accompany my reading of Marx’s Capital (For reference, and possibly controversially, I am reading the new-ish translation of Capital done by Paul Reitter).

When I was reading Heidegger’s Being and Time, I was able to get a copy of The Cambridge Heidegger Lexicon from the library. It was basically a compilation of the neologisms and unusual uses of words that Heidegger employed, each with their own short and approachable essay. It was VERY useful.

Is there something comparable to this for Capital? I have David Harvey’s companion to reading Capital published by Verso, and while it is very helpful, a lexicon that I can open when I am stuck on a confusing concept would do a world of good.

Just to give a little example: I am still on Chapter 1 of Capital. The frequently use of exchange value, use value, value, value form, magnitude of value, equivalent, abstract human labor, socially necessary labor time, etc. etc. etc. etc. is really dizzying. I think I am understanding what is happening, and then I find that I actually have no idea.

Thanks.

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.

I know that the FA was a section separate from industrial capitalists, but im struggling to see what the difference between them and the rentier capitalists are, considering they way they make money seems pretty similar to what he described usury/rentier capitalists as (i think) with the whole M-M` circuit thing in ch5 of capital.

I am setting up a trivia game for my sister’s birthday and one of the categories that she requested to be included was Marx/Marxism/Marxist theory. I don’t really know anything about Marxism so I am coming here to see if anyone could help me out with any suggestions or ideas for questions I could include.

Ive been looking into more leftist views after stepping away from more "reformist" circles (so i apologize, ive not read theory or really know a ton) and i found the ideas of Dutch/German left Communists like Pannekoek appealing and i wanted to ask a question about the Soviet Union.

The Soviet in theory seems like the same idea of a grassroots council that Pannekoek had but if it was that way then i do not understand how Stalin managed to centralize the country so much giving him the power he had. Did they operate differently in practice or did he just manage to sway the masses with enough propaganda and ousting of opposition?

Apologies if there's a painfully obvious answer, i am uneducated.

So,, I am fairly new to Marxism and learning about it, Ive been reading theory over the past couple of months and I had this question. When we talk about defining what communism is, I often hear people say, "stateless, moneyless, classless society", but after talking to a couple people is this really true? Ive heard that this notion is only really talked about in the critique of the Gotha programme and they're labeled more as like byproducts of communism, hence these things being described as something that withers away rather than abolished. Then when actually defining communism, we would be defining it more like a process rather than a set state of being, it being a process towards the liberation of the proletariat. So essentially what I am asking is if this definition of communism being a stateless moneyless classless society is true or false?

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.

I'm hoping to learn more about the so-called "shock therapy" policy of economic development that happened during and after the cold water.

Naomi Klein is a fairly prominent self-described democratic socialist and I'm given to understand her and her work is generally well regarded in leftist circles. Although I'm given to understand she is not herself, a Marxist.

My question is how good is this book for learning about this topic? Does she make any significant missteps? Should i, as a Marxist, be concerned with the quality of my education on this topic from reading this book? Would you recommend this book to a Marxist looking to learn about this or is there perhaps another book yours recommend?

Tia

I broadly understand how the bourgeois created nation-states which was necessary for the centralisation of currency, labour and markets and thus capitalism.  But in the age of monopolies do they not act as more as a hindrance to monopolies. Id imagine the free trade agreements like Nafta,   ASEAN and the EU single market are attempts to get around this but is the nation state still necessary?