File: Robert-michels.jpg (15 KB, 270x360)

15 KB JPG

Because political ideologies are a meme.

Pretty much everywhere in the world is an oligarchy in practice.

>>18479996
Both mainland China and Taiwan are market capitalist societies

>>18480009
China had political commissars in every large company

>>18480030
>every large company
Thanks for agreeing with my point

They are both market economies.

>>18479996
Because political ideology doesn’t matter as much as the economic policies implemented or the usage of said policies. Every form of “actually existing socialism” is functionally a social democratic country, that is, a country that espouses middle ground views between neoliberal/globalist economic policies and Marxist/socialist economic policies. This leads in different countries to adopt state capitalism, Nordic model, welfare state policies, or some mix thereof depending on the country in question. Some of these, like the Nordic model and the welfare state, are demonstrably leading to an increase in average well-being and equality scores than others like the state capitalist model.

With regards to East Asian countries specifically, all of them are functionally state capitalist even if they cover themselves differently. Government owned infrastructure, oligarchs in government, lobbying by companies, and so on are present and form the core of the economy in all East Asian countries, communist or not. Karoshi, the Japanese term meaning “death by overwork”, can be applied to Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean (both Koreas) working conditions as well. Unions are suppressed as much, if not more violently in these countries as they are in the US, with China ironically being notorious for this.

If there’s one thing to learn, it’s that Marxism, capitalism, Austrian school economics, libertarianism or any other school of thought doesn’t matter as much as the question of “what are the actual economic policies that are present in an economy and how are they implemented, if at all?”. Economic policy, regardless of whether it came from Smith, Marx, Keynes, or von Mises, needs to be studied if it works to improve economic efficiency, average well-being scores, and equality indices. If it does, then it must be implemented regardless of whichever author’s mouth or ass it first came out of.

>>18480124
no, political ideology does fundamentally matter especially in the context of governing nations. an AES country rooted in marxist-leninist theory is going to perceive history, philosophy, geopolitics in a completely different light compared to other nations. as such it will take an approach that is also different. i genuinely dont think you realise the pervasiveness of neoliberalism in our world considering the state of technology we possess - social media, shipping etc.. from the 1970s onwards the IMF bumfucked virtually every periphery country through structural adjustment programmes and when the USSR fell in the 1990s the US had unfettered use of military and economic force. its better to view not to view political ideology as a monolith but a praxis that is limited by the particular viewpoint contained within the philosophy of it. when the world. AES is socialism under intense pressure, not 'social democratic' because social democracy would imply a nations ruling party being rooted in kautskys 'scientific' socialism, something that is significantly in opposition to the actual existing marxist-leninist view of nations like vietnam and china. political ideology isnt a static category, its something thats constantly being interacted upon by messy reality but nevertheless is the base on which a party lies on. to say anything otherwise would be to admit that you believe in a unknowable independent supra-historical force of human beings, idealist bs. economics and all the other independent fields like history and philosophy are all interconnected, to treat one as if its better or more accurate than the other is foolish. different conditions produce different thought, china is no less right or wrong than adopting a market socialist economy than north korea is for adopting a self-sufficiency model

>>18479996
Confucianism as an overarching ideology and cultural trait.

>>18479996
Where are the sidewalks?

>>18480218
Parsing the horrible word salad you posted, yes, it is true that ideology influences economic policy. But ideology does not have an exclusive claim on economic policy; the same policies can be implemented by those who don’t even know Marx existed. Saying social democracy has its roots in Kautsky’s program neglects that a good many social democrats are Keynesian/Post Keynesian or Georgist, and have no idea who Kautsky is.

If ending the oppression of the working classes is the goal, then it matters not whether that goal was reached by Marxist or non-Marxist means. The Nordic Model has lead to quantifiable economic outcomes in decreasing metrics of oppression, and implementing its policies have led to proportional decrease in other countries. Meanwhile China continues with its 996 work culture, anti-union, billionaire-affirming (where’s tax the rich?), heavily polluted cities (some of the worst in the world btw), forcing parents to not have more than one child for more than a generation, and so on. Other AES countries are either economic shitholes (Venezuela) or are essentially more capitalist than the Nordic countries (Vietnam). What the AES countries have in common is an adherence to Marx and Lenin above all else, not an adherence to ending the oppression of the working class using quantifiable econometrics.

>>18480322
economics as we know it only formed as a field during the enlightenment, when capitalism was an emergent force that revolutionised the existing socioeconomic order of the world. economics as a formal scientific field did not exist before. thinkers like kautsky merely placed their fingers on the pulse of what constitutes the many trends of social democratic movements nowadays, which is a revisionist idealistic understanding of marxism that reinforces existing power structures. its all worthless reformism that leads to no lasting tangible change. weimar republic led to nazi germany, the present growth of fascist parties in europe (your cherished scandinavia too) demonstrates the futility of treating the symptoms and not the cancer that is capitalism

one hundred years ago china was a agrarian country strife with poverty, disease, opium and much like the ussr, albeit in an entirely different way it became a superpower in a timeframe significantly shorter than western counterparts who benefited from colonialist plunders of the world. no right to criticise a country that managed to completely change its historical trajectory through the use of innovative marxism-leninism. china wouldve ended up like india if it didn't strictly adhere to ideology. wouldn't have become the biggest green energy producer, wouldn't have regularly trialed and executed millionares. shouldn't look at china as it is but as it has progressed, because it has progressed so much and is on the track to progressing even further

you place economics as the moving force of reality yet you refuse to see the interrelation between the objective laws of economics and the subjective fields of philosophy, history, etc.. while there is an inherent objectivity in the laws of economics, this objectivity is framed through the lens of the existing 'immutable' 'eternal' system, which just so happens to really benefit one class over another

>>18479996
China and Taiwan are not "practically identical". Taiwanese have far better incomes, education, life expectancy, etc.

>>18480500
Visually they look similar.

>>18480487
A lot to unpack here, would appreciate if you formatted your posts instead of word diarrhea.

>worthless reformism that leads to no lasting tangible change
I see no lasting tangible change in China either, they just got capitalist and did it worse than “my cherished Scandinavia”. Their whole plan of “socialism by 2048” is about as convincing as the “fully sustainable production by 2050” ads that companies like to greenwash with.

>a timeframe significantly shorter than their western counterparts
South Korea and the Gulf countries would like to have a word. They did it in even shorter timeframe amidst wars, and with an even worser implementation of capitalism than the US.

>no right to criticise a country that changed its historical trajectory through the innovative use of marxism-leninism
It was Deng who saved China. Deng was at best an authoritarian social democrat. His ruthless pragmatism was what led to the great economic recovery of China from Mao’s fucking around. Comparing China to India isn’t as good of an analogy when the Indians got bumfucked even worse by colonial powers that still impact the country today - Pakistan, Bangladesh and India were all united from antiquity until the British split them apart. Saying the opium wars are a humiliation for China neglects the fact that half of that opium was grown in India against the will of the very peasants that were forced to farm it.

>regularly trial and execute millionaires, biggest green energy producer
I’m no hater, China is based for this

>economics as the moving force of reality
Mainstream economics isn’t concerned with the prescriptive analyses of Marx and co., they are concerned with descriptive analysis. There are no objective laws here, mainstream economics isn’t as concerned with trying to become physics 2.0 and is fully aware it is within a society of humans (see behavioural economics for more of this).

>>18479996
you can tell a taiwanese and a mainlander from a km apart

>>18480867
>Pakistan, Bangladesh and India were all united from antiquity until the British split them apart

LOL hello saar your poop nation was a bunch of divided states ruled by muslim warlords when the British showed up. China didn't just have the opium war and addiction, it was buckbroken into poverty by unequal treaties, then had a catastrophic civil war, then the japanese invaded during the middle of that and murder fucked millions, then the civil war carried on, then the great famine and catastrophic cultural revolution. They had it way, way worse than poop land. The British fucked off in the 50s and the cultural revolution was still another decade and a half in China's future. For all that time your country has done nothing with itself other than become the most repulsive place on the entire planet, it's amazing it's even habitable.

India average IQ 75, China average IQ 105. That's why China bounced back and India is a continent sized garbage dump full of poop, plastic waste and pollution.

>>18479996
China and Taiwan look slightly similar because they're both Chinese. It really isn't that similar though. You can't compare Taipei and Kaohsiung to Beijing and Shanghai at all beyond shared cultural aspects.

Also, look at Pyongyang and Seoul. Two radically different cities despite both being of Korean culture due to the vast difference in political systems.

>>18480875
Only by demeanor. Mainlanders radiate loud boisterous Chad energy. Taiwanese radiate docile demure virgin energy.

>>18480916
>stopped spewing word salad once the pajeet was mentioned
Damn, Ranjesh, stop pretending that you aren’t a jeet when you know so much about your people. You know who you are, there’s no need to pretend

>>18480867
>no lasting tangible change in China
you praise china for its developments, yet you claim it has no lasting tangible change. its an indefensible position. over 800 million people lifted out of extreme poverty in the span of four decades. additionally it has been meeting its five-year plan targets with flying colours. 2050 plan doesn't explicitly state its going to turn into a ussr styled economy either.

>shorter timeframe amidst wars
gulf countries are all significantly unstable and continue to be marked by wars and their economic 'development' only goes as far as providing resources for western allies so that their national elites can live lavishly while working class people are barely able to make ends meet. wellbeing metrics in south korea speak for themselves compared to wellbeing metrics in china. i compared china to india because i wanted to illustrate what happens when a government isn't guided by a cohesive ideology. in india capitalism is unfettered and economic policies are deduced with no concern for ideology. china is a country that actively combats inequality and meets its national targets percisely because ideology binds the society together.

>Deng was at best an authoritarian social democrat
how? im very intrigued since his whole opening up strategy laid on marxism-leninism that placed the communist party as the central guiding force of chinese society

my problem with economics is that it treats the issues it encounters in an infinitely unfolding quantifiable manner instead of treating reality as a totality. it neglects the interconnectedness of economics, politics, history, philosophy, etc.. and through that it reaches the conclusion your trying to put forward - that economic policy is the sole determinant of reality. economics can accurately diagnose issues and put forward solutions, but its done in a manner that presupposes an inherent objectivity within the framework its working in

>>18480030
The West does too.
They're called the HR department

>>18480957
Not my fault you are a historylet who can only blame the britishers saar

>>18481013
I don’t think we’ll get anywhere, as you are hell-bent on defending China and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics above all else. We can agree to disagree there, and discussing the Gulf countries and SK would only derail this thread.

Regarding economics, I don’t see how China’s system is any better. Eminent domain, welfare policies, tax policies and state/private controls on economic sectors all exist in other countries. It exists in a particular form in the Chinese economy, one that according to its government is in accordance with its brand of socialism. Comparing China’s policies to India and saying the lack of ideology is the core issue is an unfalsifiable statement, like, how on earth are we even to test if ideology really was the cause? The history of China and India happened, and now it’s in the immutable past. At best we can remove ideology entirely and see what policies they implemented, the statistics of how those policies affected econometrics, and if there is any correlation with econometrics from similar policy implementations in other countries.

Sociology and social psychology can be and has been integrated into modern mainstream economics, see behavioural economics, economic history and materialist historiography for that. I don’t know where you get your inherent objectivity from, if anything mainstream economics differs from Marxian economics by assuming no inherent objectivity to such things as supply and demand. Integrating philosophy with economics was already done by number of schools, whether it’s socialism, praxeology, Catholic distributivism, and so on. But mainstream economics doesn’t care about which philosopher’s asshole an economic idea crawled out of, rather whether said ideas work in an economy.

It could be said that the philosophy of mainstream economic thought is strict empiricism, applied as best as it could be.

>>18481077
the concept of falsifiability itself is ideological, used to dismiss anything that isn't hyper-rationalist, anything that doesn't accord to a way of seeing reality through a objective, 'neutral', fragmented manner where the ironclad laws of the universe take precedence. dont get me wrong, i dont deny falsifiability in itself just that the way its interpreted in our societies is something that suspiciously reinforces existing power structures in a way that discards all other solutions

india capitulated to global neoliberalism through the IMF. widespread chronic starvation and social destitution were the results of IMF backed macroeconomic efforts, also fragmented politics with hindu and islamic fundamentalists using hatred as voting strategies with varying levels of success

economists like to worship statistics and figures like gdp, gnp, etc.. without considering the foundations on which these figures are built on. empirical data is a powerful tool but in the hands of profit-hungry parasites it becomes a tool for exploitation and domination. project cybersyn is a perfect example of empirical data being used in a positive innovative way, to actually help the people of a nation

not a coincidence that china is becoming the worlds next hegemon in an extremely short timespan in human history while providing a quality of life that's relatively high, obviously it has its own issues but you cant treat it in a vacuum. its not a coincidence either that the ideology of china is marxist-leninist. without mao, deng and the other lads which are binded under an ideology of marxism-leninism, china wouldn't be china. their policies were informed exclusively by the ideological framework they worked under, in which past isn't 'immutable' as you say but a dialectical process. by dismissing ideology as an exclusive determinant on economic policy you frame the world as if it exists in a vacuum with no tension or change possible. social democracy arose as a counter to marxism

>>18481753
>falsifiability is ideological and reinforces power structures
>economics “worship” statistics, therefore economics le bad
>china has a relatively high quality of life and is the world’s next hegemon
Yeah, bud, I’m done giving ya the benefit of doubt. All of these talking points are indistinguishable from your typical /x/ schizoposter larping about the elites and a global China takeover. Deny falsifiability and statistics, and you deny science.

File: yellow4.jpg (3.42 MB, 5100x7700)

3.42 MB JPG

>>18479996
YELLOW PERIL FUCK CHYNA FUCK CHINKS

>>18481897
if you would have actually read the post you would've seen that i didn't deny it, just the premises it operates under. you assume inherent validity in science and discard history and philosophy aside as if they are non-existent variables in your calculations. thanks for labeling me as irrational, coming from an economist that's a genuine trophy and it just exposes the ideological premises you operate under which you try so hard to separate from economics

>>18481997
Economics doesn’t deny history and philosophy, it simply doesn’t operate under Marxism-Leninism’s view of history and philosophy. For you, Marxism-Leninism’s view of history and philosophy and science are the true ways to view those fields. For me, they aren’t.

>>18482025
aka it operates under the rationalist enlightenment conception of history and philosophy under which economics was formed itself. marxist-leninist philosophy isn't a dogma itself its a methodology that operates under an entirely different premises than empiricism and rationalism. theres a lot of dogmatism within marxist-leninist parties to be honest, but the method that it bases itself under is anti-dogmatic in the sense that it uses dialectical materialism and not mechanical or whatever materialism. like i said i dont deny that economics doesn't accurately diagnose certain conditions and do so in a scientific manner, to deny that would be anti-intellectual, but that it's based in an idealistic view of reality which ignores the material reality of classes and class domination. you can't seperate a scientific field from its history as if it contains transcendental supra-historical laws, and the integration attempts you mention are all fettered in idealistic conceptions because of their inability to apply a view of constant change and evolution in a materialistic manner, otherwise, they'd end up uprooting the very spine they are built on.

if you get anything away from my ramblings let it be that falsifiability doesn't presuppose objectivity in a neutral way because the billions of victims of IMF SAPs across the world would argue that the rational antidote programmes that the IMF prescribed ended up destroying their entire livelihoods while promising economic efficiency and stability

>>18482122
I disagree, it doesn’t operate under rationalist empiricism, but rather modernist empiricism (Popper and Kuhn) where ideology is seen as fallible and constantly changing. By removing ideology from itself and from fields such as sociology and historiography, we can get a view of class relations that is not tainted by “dialectics” or any other philosophical baggage other than empiricism. Such historiography does exist in economics, see economic history as a discipline for work on it. Behavioural economics explains the psychology of humans living under an economic system better than the jargon-filled treatises on “alienation” and whatnot that Marxists put out, and sociology elucidates class in a more reproducible manner than Marx’ antiquated definitions.

I don’t see how they are “integration attempts” that are “fettered in idealistic conceptions” when they root themselves firmly under observable statistics of material conditions. They are full integrations to me, period. On the other hand, I see Marxist-Leninist conceptions of these fields as rooted in a great deal of ideology (again, “dialectics” and “what Marx really meant…”) to explain phenomena that could be explained far more simply by applying modernist empiricism. Ironically, Marxism-Leninism seems adamant to see these fields as present in an ideological structure instead of just a bare minimum of theory presented by empiricism, and so practise idealism themselves by adding more than what is necessary to explain material reality.

File: ca17c191035dadaf768b7625e(...).jpg (19 KB, 398x409)

19 KB JPG

>>18480487
>through the use of innovative marxism-leninism
China is not marxist. Please for the love of god stop with this meme it's genuinely so embarassing for us actual marxists.
China is a capitalist state with a leninist party structure, exactly like the KMT was in Taïwan until the early 1990s. It operates under the law of value, where individuals compete against one another to maximize profits. It has a stock market, regular economical crash etc.

>but da plan
France until the mid 70s was effectively a planned economy with private property and large SOEs, exactly like China today. Was it thus socialist ?

>>18481013
India is a shithole because it had huge protectionnist barriers and a dysfunctional economy with massive corruptions and state intervention which made the whole thing a complete mess.
Since the 1990s however, India has stopped these practice and has had consistently above 7% growth.


>>18482149
>Behavioural economics explains the psychology of humans living under an economic system
No it doesn't because Marx's historical materialism isn't about economic behaviors, it's about the development of political systems through class conflict. They're 2 completely different systems.
For instance, let's say we use behavioral economics on Feudalism. What we could see potentially from it is that X actor, defined by Y attribute, will act in Z because of his limited rationality/perverse incentives etc. This is a result that you get by analyzing the individual WITHIN the system.
If we use historical materialism on feudalism however, we can see that : society is structured around land because the productive forces are still underdeveloped, that this creates opposing interests between the serfs and the gentry due to the relations of production, that this furthermore incentivizes the serfs to exile in the "free towns", and that this movement constitutes a slowly developing political force.

part 1/2

File: marxist_sociology.png (77 KB, 1091x574)

77 KB PNG

>>18482149
>>18482257
>and sociology elucidates class in a more reproducible manner than Marx’ antiquated definitions.
Sociology doesn't concern itself with political development. But, ironically, a large part of sociology today is still marxist because it constitutes an economical and aggregate way to model how different economic class interact with one another. Marxist sociology is literally one of the major paradigms in sociology.
But, as you can see, it's "marxist" sociology, because it differs from marxism in itself. It doesn't concern itself with how history is made through class interacting with one another, or with how different modes of production emerge, but rather focuses solely on the interactions between classes.

>empiricism
The issue with empiricism is that it has an overwhelming tendency to reduce itself to "look ! we found a heckin reproducible phenomena dood". Popper is one such example because he has a tendency to say that any system he dislikes is "unfalsiable", like that of Hegel which he misunderstood.
In any case, marxism is empirical, but just not in the traditional hyper-scientific way that modern thought has rendered empiricism. It concerns itself with material trends, with structural economic relations etc. It's just that it was written before the widespread popularization of falsifiability. Nonetheless, its claims are material, and as such falsifiable. Since you quote Kuhn, Lakatos, who was a marxist, is one of the major thinkers when it comes to the development of Kuhn's ideas in his book "Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge"

>>18482257
>>18482277
Finally, comrade, you have actually made me change my mind. Yes, I was anon in >>18482149 and earlier, arguing with the other “China is holy and sacred” word salad anon and similar anons in other threads that dogmatically point to ML without any analysis. I was socialist before but was going through a socdem/neolib phase mostly due to the lack of actual Marxist/socialist parties in the West where I live, with the best being a demsoc party, so in some sense I was coping. You have taken me out of it. I have no arguments.

File: untitled.png (164 KB, 1920x1080)

164 KB PNG

>>18482257
>>18482149

here comes the western purist ready to espouse the prophecy of pure socialist commodity exchange with the weapons of bordiga, trostky and hoxha at his side. at least the guy im debating with has a belief that isn't based on a static immaterial utopia free from any change, pressure or tension. china is precisely marxist because it adheres to a marxist-leninist worldview based in reality and not fantasy, thats why it has survived and why the glorious pure ussr has collapsed, which saw itself as having achieved a communist society. dogmatism like yours is what i was mentioning in my earlier reply, its a genuine left-wing infantile disorder. (see what i did there). china has actually managed to survive under a marxist-leninist banner in arguably worse conditions than the ussr which is an achievement in itself that you leftcoms turn a blind eye to

if we take your france comparision at ground level, would you call the ww2 wartime economies of western states socialist? no, because they were fundamentally rooted in a political capitalist undercurrent that was representative of the bourgeoisie order. would you call a nation that has been built by a marxist-leninist party adhering to a strict yet pragmatic application of dialectical and historical materialism communist, since its engaging in the process of abolishing class relations? yes, but you wouldn't call it socialist because it hasn't achieved that stage yet. marxism isn't a 2+2=4 theory, where conditions have to be met immediately to begin calling it marxist. its a process, dialectical materialism is the whole fundamental structure marxism is built on and when you casually discard it you fall into stupid fragmented immutable conceptions of what marxism means, into petty formulas that hold absolute 'validity'. state intervention in india was the only positive thing before IMF dismantled everything and gave a dose of shock therapy. labour laws were completely scrapped among many other things

>>18482348
i suppose its easier to digest over-simplified purist 2+2=4 conceptions of marxism rather than treating a multi-field philosophy with the depth it deserves

>>18479996
>China and Taiwan look practically identical
Except they don't you spastic retard. There are a myriad of more temples and shit in Taiwan vs Mainland china

>>18482458
Also, Chinese Buddhism and Taoism are state-regulated religions. Several monks escaped China and took refuge in Taiwan or the West following their revolution. The ones that stayed are commie bootlickers that practice a censored form of those religions.

>>18482389
Ah yes, communist infighting and purity testing. You love to see it.

>”As a communist, you will discuss the monumental, world-historical task that lies before you. You’ll engage in rigorous and spirited debates about Marxist theory and practice. But mostly you’ll probably complain about other communists.”

Disco Elysium never misses

>>18482471
lol

>>18482371
>with the weapons of bordiga, trostky and hoxha at his side
Holy brainrot

>china is precisely marxist because it adheres to a marxist-leninist worldview based in reality and not fantasy
No, frankly it's quite the opposite. The TLDR in China is that, after the great leap forward, Mao was relegated to a non-directing position within the Party and was forced to do an auto-critique. This prompted him to fear the loss of his position as leader of China and he turned towards the youth to launch a "cultural revolution", which was really just an order to disobey the Party. However, in 1968 (2 years after the start of the revolution), he found himself unable to contain it anymore and had to ask the PLA to start shooting at the red guards. This is where you see the end of the actual novelties which had spawned through the cultural revolution like the Shanghai Commune. After this cultural revolution ended, the Party was deeply fearful of any mass mobilization and actively sought to consolidate its power over the country and against Mao. The Gang of 4 were arrested and Deng condemned the cultural revolution.
In order to ensure economic stability, the Party started pushing for market reforms in order to restart production and modernize the country. This, however, was not done to enrich the population, it was done in order to cement the Party's rule. The results ? The CPC has the most billionaires within the party, party cadres are often expected to run businesses and have power within companies, the provincial governments are expected to fund their own SOEs to compete within one another. Etc etc. The party has systematically refused further democratisation, and has openly called itself in favor of class colaboration under the guise of the Party since Jiang Xiemin's 3 represents policy.
TLDR; China is state-capitalist where the economy serves to boost the assets and political control of the state apparatus
part 1/2

>>18482371
>no, because they were fundamentally rooted in a political capitalist undercurrent that was representative of the bourgeoisie order
You mean like Jiemin's 3 represents ? Or Xi's "harmonious development" ?

>would you call a nation that has been built by a marxist-leninist party adhering to a strict yet pragmatic application of dialectical and historical materialism communist
1. China is not applying "historical materialism" you midwit. Chinese history is taught in a nationalist manner to build the idea of an exceptional nation founded on nationalist and quasi-ethnic lines. It is not at all focused on class development. Especially since Xi's nationalist turn, China has been trying to develop the country for nationalist purposes, not for the liberation of the proletariat.
2. The KMT was Leninist too. Simply being "leninist" and calling yourself communist does not make you marxist-leninist

>marxism isn't a 2+2=4 theory, where conditions have to be met immediately to begin calling it marxist. its a process
Genuine retardation. It's sad to see how low we've sunk. Nobody is saying that marxism is a "2+2=4" theory, you're just pulling this out of your ass because you're coping hard at the idea of your nationalist capitalist country not being the communist nation you think it is. The law of exchange is not a "petty formula", it's what systematically reproduces a bourgeoisie capable of disposing of political power, which has happened in China. Marx, Engels, and practically every other prominent marxist which came after them were adamant on dismissing the law of value because they knew it would recreate class divisions.

Unironically, read Marx. Start with the manifesto, then read the German Ideology, and lastly read the Capital using a guide. Stop learning about marxism exclusively through twitter/acp slop