This article by Stuart Hall is strange, it is Marxist and lists a bunch of problems with Marx, unfortunately only to subscribe to a deeper Marxism in the end, which makes me hate it all the more. If I had a buck for every marxist who said he wasn't like those marxists while affirming marxism and siding with marxists as a whole, I'd be rich.

What is it that Marx didn’t or couldn’t or wasn’t in a position to understand? He wasn’t in a position to understand modern industrial corporate capitalism because he wasn’t alive in it. He saw the origins rather than the further development of modern industrial capitalism. The idea that the forms of capitalist organisation and exploitation should change so profoundly over a hundred years but make no difference to Marx is impossible to sustain for very long. Of course there is a great deal about modern industrial corporate capitalism on a global scale, which has forms of organisation and complexities of operation, that are not written in the law of value in the form that Marx gives it in Capital and elsewhere.

Secondly, Marx did not see, and therefore did not understand, the forms of modern imperialist capitalist relations. He saw the drive which capitalism had toward the construction of a world market, but the idea of a world productive system with a vast new complex international division of labour, which makes the poor of the third world into the proletariat of the first and which binds nation and nation together in a set of the most complicated and deeply implanted social and economic relations, is a world Marx did not confront. Consequently, there is a whole range of things about the relationship between the proletariat, or the working class or productive labour in the advanced world and the forms in which it connects to the poor and the oppressed – indeed to other apparently non-marxist classes like the old peasantry – in the underdeveloped world which we will not find adequately explained in Marx.

nd about the state Marx is vivid, brief, sketchy and wrong a lot of the time. He was most wrong about the tendency of the state to wither away. I can’t find a single state that looks in the remotest like withering away. I just see them all growing and growing and growing – the liberal capitalist state, the monetarist state and the minimalist state, the law-and-order state and the socialist state. Especially the socialist state. They all just keep on, like topsy, growing and growing. So the notion that there is some unalterably inevitable law that will enable us to seize the relations that we want to transform through the state is wrong. The state is not going to say: ‘Cheerio, I’m off, mission accomplished, it’s all yours. Here is where history begins. I belong to necessity and I’m going right now while you press on to freedom’.

There is also inevitably in Marx, though not especially in Marx, but more in marxism, a notion of the inevitability of the crisis and of the overthrow of capitalism itself. Let me say that about this, marxists should walk on their hands and knees in contrition at least once a month. From Marx’s early look at 1848 onwards, we’ve all thought it is going to happen faster than it has. There’s one point where Marx and Engels said: ‘Well, I’m sorry, it’s not the death throes of capitalism, it is the birth pangs’. But between the death throes and the birth pangs of capitalism is a whole history, much longer than my life or yours. We can hardly say of this: ‘I’m sorry and I got it wrong, I thought it was going but it was only just beginning’. This is something for which we all need a little of what used to be called ‘recognition of errors and abuses’. We need a little text at the end in the margin, to say: ‘I’m sorry, I do confess to the international proletariat, I wasn’t right about it’. It’s no laughing matter, of course. After all, in the period from 1917 to 1921, the marxist movement also thought it was looking at the last – not only the highest but the last – stage of capitalism, and it mistook the capacity of that system to reconstitute itself and restructure itself, on a profoundly new and expanding basis. On that basis we made errors in the capacity to construct socialism in one country which has proved to be one of the most serious barriers in the socialist movement to the construction of socialism in our times.

there's more, I don't feel like re-reading it.

Ah thanks

The first quotes amuses me, because it makes sense if I put a Porta Rican accent on it.

Sure. I'm no longer a librarian but I'd publish it.

Maybe one more revision though, idk what's going on there:

At that moment, a noise It seemed to reach my ears like a gift.

Today I'm going to scream with rage until I die on the director's knee. executive of a nuclear firm.

For a source, or in the #notes, it wouldn't hurt to add a link the original text.

/u/Subrosa do u think this would be worth me putting on the anarchist library?

Why did you ask yourself a question?

yeah this was written by me and Majrelende

I wrote the cop stuff they wrote the nature parts. Which I think made the wiki way more fun to read

I love how half of this seems to be attract cops, run from cops, get out of jail and the other half is just go exist in nature.

Give me a list of all the things I shouldnt link just so i know I aint doing anything illegal.

/j

Yeah I don't think that's a good idea either. Considering dread has tons of adds for illegal drug markets.

I think it might more be a case of no one really noticing rather than that being something acceptable

Tho I could be wrong as /u/Ziq is the ultimate authority. Tho there is like 0 benefit to linking to dread cuz dread link r really easy to find. So I think it's a massive risk for like 0 real benefit.

But yeah I'm not mad or anything just being honest.

Hey don't link to dread or any other illegal as shit sites onto raddle. I actually like raddle.me servers not getting seized by feds

Pdf is hard to quote.

was this created because of me lol anyways i understand now sorry for using the r word

Go ahead

Wouldn't /w/Extra_Features make more sense?

sure, go ahead and edit

i unlocked it

w/list_of_free_online_libraries

When I first came across Raddle, I started at the leftmost button on the top-menu. And so I read articles from the news. Then I looked through some of the forums (second from the left). Only later did I come across the Wiki (third-left button)!

I don't know what better introduction there is than the pages of our wiki.

I am familiar with browsing Wikipedia. Though I haven't contributed to that site! I suppose I mean that I'd like some introduction to this site. As I obviously hadn't been familiar with its workings!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

What is the wiki for?

f/wiki is for discussing changes / additions to the wiki. meta is for discussions about the site in general.

sounds like an IP ban false positive. someone with your IP must have been banned in the past. If you're using Tor then use the onion address.

Not sure if this helps but there's a toolbox category at the bottom of each forum page with a moderation log.