So Veeky Forums

...it was an impulse buy.

First, I'm no doctrinaire leftist but I think it is reasonable to suppose that the writings of Ann Coulter will be either largely forgotten or D-list curiosity-material circa 2200. The comparison that you've set up is false in the sense that Marx has actually mattered to history, hence the interest in his work.

Moreover, a lot of continental philosophy types regularly refer to Marx, hence the sincere bougie interest (again! I did it again!) in what Marx actually wrote, for pertinent context. Your "history has passed you by" phrase is confused in the sense that it either suggests a leftist stuck in the past, or a conservative fishing for intellectual ammo, similarly stuck in the past. The notion that someone is sincerely interested in reading a Marxist text primarily as a historical document and useful-to-know piece of culture (which since it is properly understood as such, has not passed its reader by, so to speak) is instead what seems to have escaped you.

>reading a Marxist text primarily as a historical document and useful-to-know piece of culture
this is literally what ive been saying since my first post. im sorry that your reading comprehension skills are terrible.

but if youre reading marx for the same reasons that neo-nazis read mein kampf, or fedora tippers read the origin of species, youre wasting your time.

On the contrary, the only post which you had addressed to me is (although I did also respond to ), and so these two posts were the only two I dealt with. But assuming that this thread's first reply is yours, you're still misguided concerning the academic/personal value split. Happily OTOH, following your unwarranted insult, you do seem to be striking a more agreeable tone. Perhaps you refer to the more explicit , which had not been part of our exchange until this point.

However you're still getting something else wrong. Although it is easy in these quarters (especially since Veeky Forums is Veeky Forums's most culturally left-wing board) to imagine either of the neckbearded fedora or the neo-nazi as unreflective pigs, I would go as far as to suggest that there /is/ value in either of these unlikeable characters reading their Hitler or Darwin, even if their motivation is their own pet ideological reasons. Likewise the pimply undergraduate commie who has actually read Capital, or Marxist text X. All three of our unsympathetic caricatures are rewarded for their efforts, if they have taken notes, in that they can be taken just that little bit more seriously when they discuss their topic of choice. In general and holding everything else equal, /it is better to have actually read the book than not/, as this immediately gives you the upper hand in a conversation, argument, etc. Even concerning cringey meme-material which, ironically, a 4channer might avoid and never actually engage with for that very reason, notwithstanding that it remains "a well known work", "historically important", etc.

Haha, dude, you're so beyond fucked to read this.

Wow, someone on lit actually reading a primary source before espousing their bullshit appropriated opinions on it. Good for you, user. Though desu you should have gotten selections of it (lile the shit that addresses ideology) because that os a fucking slog to get through.

The only thing Capital is good for is understanding economy in a practical way. The only people who actually want to do this are either homeless revolutionary leftists (angry american poor people) or hardcore conservatives (angry american rich people). Marx's thought will either strike you as naive or as cynical, and you will not learn anything you did not already inherently understand from growing up in the late-20th-century first world. The only people who "benefit" from reading it are the self interested single-entity fucks who are excitedly planning to vote for an angry friendless old celebrity, and hate immigrants for vague reasons. I have conservative friends who have read Marx and disagree with him in articulated, practiced ways, and liberal ("anarchist," except they still work and vote and don't actually do anything that matters, decision-wise) friends who hate reading Marx, they feel like he symbolizes a failed establishment that does not really represent "real communist ideology."

Read the Manifesto, though, so you can at least understand the anger. Read the Unabomber too, and maybe the Quran. Watch some N Korean and Iranian and ISIS propaganda. This is what the people who hate you are making.

It's cute how you've tried using twee-leftist language to dress up "Trump supporters r dum", but the prose itself is poor. "Self interested single-entity fucks" is something one writes when they are 19. And you don't get where Trump is in life without having at least a few genuine friendships, in addition to all the "networking/business contacts", enemies, etc. It is amusing that you've sketched your rightist friends as being overall more able, responsible people than your leftist friends.

>one writes when they are 19
>one writes when they

>Marx's thought will either strike you as naive or as cynical, and you will not learn anything you did not already inherently understand from growing up in the late-20th-century first world.

Volume 1 of Capital exclusively deals with the industrial labour process with some history on the transition from feudalism to capitalism in England mixed in. No one growing up under the modern warfare-welfare state apparatus, that Marx doesn't deal with at all, would find any of this stuff self-evident unless they're from the third world maybe.
The thing you might find naive is Marx obviously thougth in volume 3 that industrial capital would succeed in fully subordinating finance capital to its own interests which never ended up materialising.

They are more able and responsible. And I'm probably voting for Trump. But there are some definite negatives that I've seen in the rabid rightists that I've talked to.

Anyway, I don't trust that any of Trump's friendships are "genuine." I'm sure that he has a bunch of mutually-profitable associations with other successful people, but that's an economic connection, not an emotional one. Trump as a person and as a political entity is completely focused on internal self-satisfaction, in a way that does not take into account long-term post-death goals at all. I doubt he even envisions a world after he is dead.

I bought Thomas Piketty's capital in the twenty-first century and i haven't read yet. Maybe in 10 years more

I'm reading the abridged version myself. I'll probably actually finish it and be able to remember more of the points

since I'm not doing extremely serious orthodox marxian analysis anyway...

Started reading it today, only like halfway through the introduction (100 pages! why?) and the sense I get so far is this: Marx's attempt at providing objective "laws of motion" describing the relationship of labor and capital will be interesting, potentially insightful. I'm iffy on the labor theory of value, will have to see what Mawx says and how much it determines the rest. The introductory writer seemed to hand- wave away the objections against it.

Ernest Mandel, the author of volume 1's intro, was an RL communist and a true Marxist believer, as opposed to a mere academic. So that's why his prose reads like it does - he's an advocate.

Fun fact: Ernest Mandel was once denied entry to the United States. It was challenged, and upheld. This denial of entry was effected using a law which is still on the books to this very day, which empowers the president and others to unilaterally and arbitrarily deny entry /to any class whatever/ of non-citizens deemed undesirable. It is this exact same law that Donald Trump will be able to lawfully (and I might add, correctly) use to deny entry to Muslim non-citizens, for no other reason than that they are muslim and not US citizens, once he is elected to the presidency.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleindienst_v._Mandel

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title8/chapter12&edition=prelim

In the latter link, simply search "whenever the president finds" to find the relevant paragraph, which is Title 8, Chapter 12, § (section) 1182, paragraph (f). Although the language is simple enough, it may happen elsewhere that these powers have been delegated to the AG, etc, perhaps by executive order. Certain other close-by language was used by Jimmy Carter of all people to restrict Iranian movement during the revolution.

Amusingly, per the middle wiki link, the law (or body of laws) has been used to BTFO of various loonies who attempted to visit the USA, including left precious darlings such as Michel Foucault, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pablo Neruda, and current Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau.

make sure you take a picture of it on your shelf with a bookmark about 50 pages in so i can add it to my collection.

Well he certainly got what he deserved, because his introduction read like a Puritan grandmother introducing Jonathan Edwards.