Tho I say Marx's critique of political economy isn't his primary achievement for communists, I leave unexplained the fascination it has exerted for communists, for me. I certainly spend more time reading and discussing Capital than the other texts. 1/

In part, as I hinted, it's because of the possibility of reading Capital not as a description of capitalism but as an inverted description of communism. (see Bordiga, but also RN Berki).2/

the other thing, obviously, is that Marx does provide an incredible account of the laws of motion of capitalism, its dynamics, its structuring, and this is very useful in making sense of the world and thinking about where it's heading. 3/

that doesn't take primacy -- at least logically-- over a direct articulation of the possibility of communism, and we can see that more clearly in the early texts. i think this is because marx didn't think it necessary to make such an articulation 4/

his attempts to unfold the implications of the theory of value for the construction of communism (civil war in france, gothakritik) are brilliant but also fragmentary, occasional pieces. 5/

and so we keep trying to discover in the mature critique of political economy a communism that is and isn't there, and we spend hours debating about it. i think there is a kind of enjoyment in this theoretical production. 6/

for those of us doing this work, it is one of the ways we can get a little taste of communism in this life (there are few). but you only need that when you can't do the thing. 7/