Read on Twitter
@Kali_de_Armas normally has some real good tweets but this is not one of them and I want to go over *why* more. And since it’s probably my tweet from yesterday he’s referring to, I’m going to engage bluntly
Marx wrote an entire book (or had one assembled from manuscripts) on precapitalist economic formations. Simply picking and choosing like 2 *sentences* of capital to misattribute a claim Marx clearly opposes is frankly lazy and not in line w good marxism. Here’s some other quotes:
When explaining how Germanic/serf relations did not allow for proper communal ownership:
“An isolated individual could no more possess property in land than he could speak. At most, he could live off it as a source of supply like the animals”
“An isolated individual could no more possess property in land than he could speak. At most, he could live off it as a source of supply like the animals”
Then talking about the former MoPs
“ In the relationship of slavery and serfdom there is no such separation; what happens is that one part of society is treated by another as the mere inorganic and natural condition of its own reproduction. “
“ In the relationship of slavery and serfdom there is no such separation; what happens is that one part of society is treated by another as the mere inorganic and natural condition of its own reproduction. “
@Kali_de_Armas should appreciate the fact that Marx already articulated and defends against Kali’s counterpoints i.e. capitalism doing wealth production.
Its actually necessary for a process of *becoming* in order to reach a production totality and not simply reproduction
Its actually necessary for a process of *becoming* in order to reach a production totality and not simply reproduction
Lastly Marx has an appreciation and critique of bourgeois political economy etc. And always thought total rejections of bourgeois positions, ideologically driven, was bad praxis. We can find rational kernels in capitals shell. We can find poverty alleviation when we actually look
This doesn’t mean capitalism doesn’t also do *poverty creation*, it both alleviates some poverty and creates some poverty. To only accept one side is to not be dialectical and understand the unity in this contradiction. Capitalism is bringing about more *people* period
To say simply that you deny that there has been poverty alleviation is ironically idealist as hell
