Books and theory

So, Zig Forums, what are you reading? What's on your to read list? Do you have stack of books to read?
Right now I'm reading The Capital, much easier and better than I expected, the first section is not as hard as people say.

Attached: 15320386291841666078873.jpg (3120x4160 3.06 MB, 3.27M)

Other urls found in this thread:

theintercept.com/2017/08/09/atlas-network-alejandro-chafuen-libertarian-think-tank-latin-america-brazil/
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-tomo-i-karl-marx/101272
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-tomo-ii-karl-marx/101253
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-tomo-iii-karl-marx/101259
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-livro-segundo-tomo-iv-karl-marx/15677053
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-livro-segundo-tomo-v-karl-marx/15677054
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-vi-karl-marx/15677055
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-tomo-vii-karl-marx/17436041
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-livro-terceiro-tomo-viii-karl-marx/20086139
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Currently reading John Smith's Imperialism (I've already read Lenin's), Cockshott's TANS, and Xi Jingping's Governance of China.
Recently finished Materialism and Empirio-Criticism by Lenin which was very illuminating on the difference between materialism and idealism, and Communist Horizon by Jodi Dean, which was a bunch of rubbish.

Oh yeah and congrats on starting Capital! It is so important to read once you understand the basics of Marxism-Leninism. It's a real "red pill" because it constantly destroys your indoctrinated beliefs in bourgeois economics.

Oh, and speaking of the first section of the Capital; Marx's book "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" helps a lot to get the argument, as it is mostly the first section but a bit earlier with more jabs on Ricardo.

Whats the problem with her book? Saw a couple of lectures on youtube and it was pretty decent, she also made some nice argument's against IdPol.

There's already a theory thread. It's just buried under a pile of anchored shit that certain mods don't want to delete for some reason.

Yeah I downloaded her book because some of her lectures seemed good too. But the book is mostly crap. It alleges that historical materialism is obsolete, and spends most of its pages on totally unverifiable, unscientific Freudian conjecture. It's also hilarious to read because it's wildly optimistic about Occupy Wallstreet. The greatest contribution the book gives is a criticism of "self representation" in politics– IE, since even an individual person has contradictions inside themselves, they are not actually better-suited to represent their interests in politics than a party is.


This thread is a bit different though.

I'm reading A People's history of the United States by Howard Zinn right now. It's interesting to read how racism was used as a tool to divide the poor in colonial America.

lmao. That's why I have a hard time taking these people seriously.

Ah, you are one of those guys. Laplanche(and so does Althusser) gives a nice rebuttal to this but I won't spend my time discussing it. It was already discussed and leads to a whole bunch of nothing.
Now this is a real problem. It's one thing to say that historical materialism has it's deficiencies but its another thing entirely to dismiss it as obsolete. A shame she went down on this route.

How and why should I take notes?
It's retarded

I don't take notes myself because I'm lazy, but usually you copy down a passage you think it's important and write a couple of sentences explaining why you agree or why you don't agree with, and after reading the book you try to make a resume of what the book talked about and what was it's arguments.
Lenin's notebooks are somewhat relevant as what it looks like. Umberto Eco has a book called "How to Write a Thesis", the chapter "The Work Plan and the Index Cards" should give you some pointers on how it's done.
As for why, it usually helps on understanding what you read and better internalize it's arguments. It also helps further on to have some sort of register of what you read and what you thought at the time.

As it so happens, I have just reorganised the shelf of my bookcase dealing with books relevant to my ideological work.
Unfortunately I lack both the room and nerve to display my collection of original Technocracy Inc materials (a section of a standard organisers package for new members being displayed in the second picture) and my 1938 copy of the 'History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union'.


I'm currently subjecting myself to TaNS.
Cockshott some interesting ideas, however for everything even remotely interesting in the book I have found a dozen things that are just painful to read.
The section on democracy in particular was utterly embarrassing and frankly the sort of thing I would expect to see on some liberal sub-reddit.

Attached: 03.jpg (2568x1720 675.25 KB, 433.13K)

One of those guys what? I'm not against analyzing people's thoughts or the thoughts of groups of people. But if you read Communist Horizon you will see that it's literally just playing word games, putting empty labels with no relation to material conditions on political groups.

Yes, Cockshott has some pretty bad/useless ideas, however I think his scientific arguments are quite valuable. As Marxists we are stuck with a shortage of really great, consistent Marxist thinkers today (and in the foreseeable future), and so we have to take whatever is useful to us from anywhere we can find it.

Good to see a fellow brazilian (assuming due to the books) around these places! Currently reading Anti-Dühring and getting ready to read Imperialism by Lenin. Also reading bits of Towards a New Socialism every now and then.

Saudações vermelhas companheiro!

Pic related is the collection, thank god for Verso sales. I have a bunch more of Frederic Jameson, Althusser, etc. sitting in my queue behind my immediate stuff. Presently reading Introduction to Cybernetics by Glushkov and The Best Use of Economic Resources by Kantorovich.
Just recently finished Kantorovich' essays on optimal planning, along with Farjoun and some more of Paul Dongblast pieces - I'm saving all the "ideology" specific stuff for later, as this stuff is actually related to my research

Attached: IMG_0074.jpeg (1400x990 2.15 MB, 1.43M)

Yeah, I must be one of the few people that signed into Expressão Popular book club, great value for 60 reais.
There used to be more, but I guess most just fucked off elsewhere or stopped using chans.
How is Anti-Dühring? Is it as good as Engel's other works, like Peasant Wars in Germany and The Origin of Family? It's one of his works that I've been meaning to get into it, but there's always something else that I must get first.

Always kind of interesting to see all the books people here have and read. I'm pretty much limited to digital myself, except for my copy of State and Revolution.

Since you're from Brazil, I must ask: why are there so many Brazilian reactionaries online?

I'm a fast reader, but I'm reading the polymath Otto Neurath and a dozen other books at the same time taking forever to finish anything and I'm also reading about twenty random papers, jumping back and forth between them (I probably have ADHD). Neuarath died over 70 years ago, so his stuff should be in the public domain, but it looks like most of his work hasn't been scanned and uploaded by anybody and it would probably cost me a thousand € to get it all in print.

Jodi Dean: Did you know that any disagreement between you and your party is because you don't actually know what you really think, like subconsciously, but the party knows, so you better stop beating yourself and agree with the party. She also wrote a book about UFOs…

There is a cumulative gerrymandering effect in how long voting delegation chains "work", that's why people with some basic grounding in math prefer sortition. What I would call utterly embarrassing is what I've read by Technocracy advocates about nomination from below and appointment from above from the nominated set, as that is so vague that any such method could give 99 % of the power to the bottom or top depending on what the threshold for nomination and the required minimal number of candidates for positions are.

This is an oversimplification, she was just arguing against OWS-style anarkiddies who think hierarchy is totally evil. Not saying that parties can't also be wrong.

Jodi Dean

Why do you think this quote disproves what I said? Do you have brain damage?

Here you go:
It's always a pleasure to discuss things with people shilling for authors they haven't read.

I ask again, do you have brain damage?
is not the same as
Jesus christ I read the damn book, I didn't even like it and I'm sick of socdem Zizekians, but you're plainly misrepresenting one of the only mildly redeeming arguments in it.

I took the freedom to restore and make bold the part of the quote that you had to remove in order to have something that looks like an argument.
>>If however, you accept any basic ideas of psychoanalysis, you know there is an unconscious, and that someone can never fully represent themselves
That was literally her argument in that speech. Trusting the party, because muh subconsciousness.
The Dean quote is not from the book, it is from a speech.

I have a ton of books to read. Debt: the first 5000 years; Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital; Un Nuevo Estado para un Nuevo Orden Mundial: Una (re)Lectura del Proceso Soberanista Esloveno (translated into Slovene); The Conquest of America; Liberty and Property: A Social History of Western Political Thought; Reading Capital (by Frenchies); Le communisme en mouvement (about Yugoslav self management experimentation); Wobblies and Zapatistas. After this I still have a lot of Yugoslav marxist to read.

We need to become the Marxist thinkers. Everything from the 80's onward is mostly rubbish, there are exceptions of course. But after Stalinism came to light and when USSR collapsed a whole bunch of crap "Marxists" (basically postmodern liberals who denounce historical materialism) were doing work.

A more or less functional leftist government for 13 years made the kids think it's cool to be reactionary as a way to rebel while there was, and is, a extremely reactionary press criminalizing and acting against leftists. There's also a bunch of Koch brothers money and think thanks that gained traction with the most vitriolic part of the press.
That''s not to mention the usual latin american imperative that all middle class must be a fascist of some kind.
This article by the intercept helps explain the rise of certain talking points: theintercept.com/2017/08/09/atlas-network-alejandro-chafuen-libertarian-think-tank-latin-america-brazil/
As in illustration on the press part: it reads "recession and unemployment gives back purchasing power to brazilans". It's not ironic, they truly believe this shit.
By the love of christ, I can't seem to post without some bullshit happen.

Attached: naom_58e8a8d85bd7b.jpg (1920x1080, 109.2K)

So, they're mostly just middle class edgelords? Thanks for answering.

Great film

O engraçado é que o tradutor dessa versão é um olavete

Da versão de O Capital, digo

same as in most of the world

...

Serio? Nego é olavete mesmo? Não é só nome parecido? Puta que o pariu.

You argue like a liberal. Just because "someone can never fully represent themselves," doesn't mean "you don't actually know what you really think, but the party knows." How would a party get around the fact that it's a group of individuals? What about reactionary parties? Your distortion of the argument is absurd.

She's paraphrasing her book.

I have a book on the history of socialism by Max Beer that I have been meaning to start reading.
Anti-Duhring is a pretty good read, the toughest parts in it are the ones about philosophy but even those are very simple. I have only read Origin of the family of the books you cited but I can tell you it is a pretty good book.

Reading The German Ideology and it's fuckin brutal. Doesn't help that I'm not really well-read in philosophy.

It's bullshit I just want to read Marx and Lenin and the crew. But in order to do so you need Hegel, Kant, whoever the hell came before them…Descartes, Spinoza, Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, pre-socratics etc by the time I finish all that shit I'll be dead.

Not really sure why, but somehow I bought Eugene Thacker newest book on pessimism. Seems to be fun. He seems to have structured his book in a similar way as Cioran did.
Oh, and Marx's Capital is still pretty good. Although it seems like is never going to end, he just goes on and on. Already passed half of the book, right now I'm the middle of him talking about machine and human labor. Lot's of citations of Leonard Horner on his investigations of child labor in british factories.

That's nice to hear, I should be getting Anti-Dühring sometime next month or so(if I manage to not over expend on other books, again). So far from readings of Marx and Engels, it is Engels who offers more accessible books and theory, although not dumbed down, just easier to grasp.

Deleuze has a method of reading philosophy that might interest you, he suggested reading the work with little to no knowledge of their context and their influences as a way to make the text your own, or something like that. He supposedly did that with Nietzsche and Spinoza, which lead to his unorthodox readings of them. So yeah, read Lenin, Marx, Engels and the gang, don't worry about getting into their influences(at least for the moment). Be warned that he was remarkably well versed on the history of philosophy, in fact, very few people in the 20th century were as knowledgeable as he was in the history of philosophy.

Attached: Thacker book.jpg (3120x4160, 3.1M)

You should unironically read Hegel though. He's right up there with Hobbes.

You absolutely do not need to read the older philosophers before reading Marxists. If anything, reading the Marxists gives you a modern context to interpret the old philosophers through when you read them later.

What kind of fucked up scale of comparison places Hegel with Hobbes, let alone thinks that Hobbes is worth his weight in anything but history of philosophy.

I'm very worried what the people here would come up with as "marxist thinkers", myself included

Attached: sad mister grips.png (315x218, 50.2K)

I don't like the post-Marxism BS. I'm going all the way back to Lukac. Orthodox Marxism all the day.

-Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World

The author of the books is a liberal, which is a shame, but I'm glad he showed his biases instead of hiding them; also, surprisingly well educated dude, couldn't believe myself when the guy started to talk about dialectics.

At any rate, the book is study on how neo-liberalism (the mcworld) and the jihad (a category described by the author as encompassing ultra-nationalists, Celtic and other traditionalist larpers, tribalists and ethnic supremacists) live on a dialectic relation of interdependence. The jihad uses the means of the mcworld to spread their message and gather supporters. The Mcworld uses the chaos caused by the Jihad to excuse the instalation of pro-neolib authoritarian governments and promote it's ideals as the less barbaric option.

The book was written in 95, and the author managed to predict a multiple of conflicts happening today, among them the conflicts in Crimea, Syria, Iraq and the rise of fascism in western europe. Definitely worth a read.

Attached: jihad AND mcworld.jpg (630x354, 32.63K)

JODI DEAN: CROWDS AND PARTY – REVIEW repost
1/3
Meh. I got the impression that Jodi Dean skim-reads her sources.
That's a caricature. Surowiecki doesn't claim that they always will come up with the best solution. He merely points out that it is likely under certain conditions. The mathematical argument for that is not a new thing, a "present inversion", it had been made long before the "early crowd theorist" Le Bon was even born, by Condorcet (Condorcet's jury theorem).

2/3
And the solution is the cybertariat must rollerblade towards the revolution on the information superhighway!

I agree with the following:
Why doesn't she consistently write in a style similar to that sentence? I don't think her other thoughts are particularly complicated, but most pages are filled with complicated, that is pretentious, writing. And of course, there is the typical Jodi Dean thing where she wants you to take the brown pill:
And the glorious party knows what you want without you even knowing that yourself. Sure.

3/3
This sort of nonsense doesn't even require a refutation.

This is just another example of the sort of talent that Dean and friends celebrate and cultivate: to phrase simply things in the most convoluted and asshatterish manner possible. How can you get over 100 % of the gains? Well, like this: It is an amount equal to the gains plus something more, that is the rest getting poorer not only in relative terms. But then it isn't really a percentage OF the gains, captured from them, innit? Well, we can't make the text too easy to understand, else we aren't real intellectuals.

So, in case you wonder what Dean's advice on party structure is, what should be local matter and what should not, whether to have proportional representation, what the role of modern communication technology is, and how to better distinguish between reformist demands that may later block revolutionary change and those that are compatible with it, read this at the end of it:
Th-thanks!! Great book 10/10 would eat shit again.

Yeah he usually offers a simple and easy to understand text even if the matters are a bit difficult. How is the Expressão Popular book club? Since you mentioned it I got kinda interested.
Do you have any good reccs of publishers here in Brasil? I am aware of a few good ones like Boitempo, Nova Cultura and Expressão Popular itself, apart from a few others like the books published by smaller groups like Seara Vermelha.

Pretty decent overall, the book of the month is usually explicitly marxist (exception being the Mario Andrade anthology). The overall focus is mostly on social struggles and causes, so one month you might get a Lenin anthology, or a book on the Vietnam war as seen by the vietcongs, and in the next one get an anthology on the LGBT struggle. Usually the books they choose fluctuate between 200 pages and 300 pages, so you won't be getting some pocket book or pamphlet. Last month, for instance they've sent two books from Marta Harnecker.
The big issue with them is the sending process, as they use Correios it might get lost or late and they have the bad habit of not giving you the tracking code, as well as not warning you if they sent the book or not.
Oh, and you don't have to pay for shipping, just the monthly fee. 35 reais for one book and 60 for two, the second one you choose from a selection of books they offer(10 or so).
Outside of those there are the party publishers, like Sundermann and Anita Garibaldi, and smaller ones like Alameda. There's always the university publishing houses, UNESP and Unicamp usually publishes some very nice and interesting stuff. Ciências Revolucionarias is essentially the old nova cultura, from the guy that splitted and took all their shit. I don't know much aside from those and Livraria Marxista(they published ⛏️rotsky biography of Stalin I think).

Attached: IMG_20180721_175533153_HDR.jpg (4160x3120, 3.46M)

It's from those weird Maoists of the MEPR, right?

Does it mention how the vast majority of Al Qaeda and other terrorist activities are financed by the CIA/Mossad/MIT/Saudi intel, etc?

Oh yeah, I forgot completely about Jodi's retarded theory of communicative capitalism, she went on about that in Communist Horizon as well. No explanation of how labor value is exploited through social networks, no attempt to locate the sources of value or discern whether the Silicon Valley corporations represent services or production. Totally useless.

Please stop using this slur, they were the NLF.

I guess I'm not really familiar with them and the groups surrounding them but they have published some rather interesting books like A Carta Chinesa. I am also very fond of the quality of their prints. I just tend to appreciate any Marxist publishers here in brasil as long as it's not stuff like PSOL and other pseudo-socialists groups

pick one

samba gommunism rise up :—-D
(Alckmin não vai ganhar, né? ;-;)

Attached: 13010716_1122596174449684_1352486328432623892_n.png (788x668, 465.13K)

sounds pretty based, thanks comrade

i will give it a shot comrade

thanks comrade

Hobbes is literally one of the only good anglo philosophers ever. Shut your fucking mouth liberal.

Attached: leviathan_hobbes.jpg (628x480, 125.43K)

Just gave a quick search, yes, it's them. While what they publish is interesting, their organization is pretty fucking weird and while it seems to be old, they have no shared history or connections with other movements. I can't find any sort of records on their history, I imagine this is result of their paranoia.
Good luck in finding them. The vast majority of marxist publishers are connected to academics and those tend to gravitate towards PT, PSOL and PSTU. It would be nice to see some outsiders.

Lula, or whoever he indicates, will win and you are going to like it.
Bem capaz de ser o Celso Amorim, o que é bom, porque ele é um cara bem interessante e provavelmente não cairia sem uma boa briga ou um escândalo internacional gigantesco, alem de ter um potencial de radicalização maior que o do Lula ou o Haddad(ou de traição).

Yeah, I know. Vietcong is just easier to remember. I also know that the US somehow managed to be worse than the fucking french and that they were losing allies at an alarming speed due to their stupidity.

Duvido que os milicos deixariam o Lula voltar ao poder.

Attached: tio russo do bigode.png (537x614, 283.24K)

Currently reading Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth”. Only about 30 pages in and while it’s interesting I’m not entirely convinced by his arguments. First of all, early in his first chapter he appears to take some positions that sound too much like ethnonationalism and ethnic cleansing for my taste. However I’m still not sure whether or not he is saying that physical removal colonists is necessary even after the exploitative relationship between them and the natives has ended. I’m also not convinced by his argument that violence is the only means to achieve liberation, since he seems to be arguing for it on the grounds of principle rather than effectiveness. He seems to be more concerned with the optics and principles of “asking” for freedom rather than taking it, which I can understand, but imo it should take a back seat to actual results. If anything his writing seems to be convincing me of the need for a two pronged approach of both bullets and ballots, which is a position I’ve held for a while.

Milicos são retardados e covardes se formos ouvir esses filhos da puta só deixariam o bolsonaro. Eles aceitam, mas vão chorar e ameaçar.

Samora Machel did that, as a result only a couple hundred of whites(those that fought alongside him and their families) stayed. Problem was: almost no one of those that stayed knew hoe to manage infrastructure, so for a time Maputo had no running water and electricity.
Do you recommend reading him? He seems to be interesting, but his fans are all the most cancerous of idpolers.

Your opinion is noted, christcom dogmatist.

Attached: Damnthiswall.jpg (1280x720, 122.08K)

Like I said, it was written by a liberal. I don't see how that would invalidate the book since
A)The book does place the blame on neo-liberalism, which is the bigger picture(after all, the CIA is someone's lapdog)
B)The CIA supports extremists, they don't create them out of thin air.

I recommend reading anything and everything you can get your hands on. If you’re asking whether or not I agree with his ideas, it’s too early for me to say. One thing I do appreciate is that he approaches colonialism from a generally Marxist perspective. His main argument is that colonialism is different from regular capitalism in that it uses race as the justification for exploitation rather than muh bootstraps or divine right or other means, and that this fundamentally alters the nature of class struggle in colonized countries. Essentially he is arguing that class struggle and racial struggle are inseparable in colonized countries, which I think is true to a large degree. However it’s important to remember that a settler, much like the bourgeoisie, is defined by what they do, not who they are. My main concern is whether or not Fanon himself realizes this.

1. What is an extremist? We are talking about militant reactionaries. Call them contras, fascists, imperial terrorists, etc.
2. You can't create anything out of thin air, but it is perfectly possible to create things out of given materials.
3. The CIA created Al Qaeda and ISIS, as well as hundreds of other terrorist groups and death squads around the world.

I loke the effort, but Deleuze's post Marxism is, lets be frank with it, trash.

I constantly find Engles and Luckas way more relevant than these post Marxism nonsense

Nice advise.
Not so sure about that, it tends to simplify a lot. At some point in the future I'm going to read him. Thanks for the answer.

Deleuze is not a marxist or a post marxist. Deleuze is Deleuze, a weird and influential philosopher much closer to Bergson and Spinoza than Marx and Hegel. I was not recommending him, but rather his method of reading philosophy as a way to help the comrade in need.

Good luck in your studies. Do try to read their influences, but don't get caught in the "I need to read y so I can read x", read what you want and what feel it is needed.

is there anything like this in the states that doesn't suck?

always good books to read

What makes something a contradiction according to diamat? I've heard it described as a conflict, but that's vague

That's a good question

WTF I thought the armchair thing was a meme. Turns out it's actually real, reading books makes you want to get an armchair. Who /armchair/ ITT? What kind of armchair do you have?

Attached: chair.jpg (1500x1500, 328.81K)

Where did you get those books you mentioned?

I just read in my desk chair tbh
I have an arched chair in my room but it's not an armchair

currently checking out Nietzsche (e.g. Zarathustra, Genealogy of Morals, Gay Science) and might go back to Heidegger since I have much of his work as pdf including his works on Nietzsche. Already read a ton of lefty and other stuff.

...

so, I'm reading hegel right now, and while I kind of understand him, he seems to really make a word salad of what he's trying to say
it's not unintelligible but it could be a lot simpler

there's a recent translation that's supposed to be easier

really? where is it?

What is your prefered way of reading?
Do you just read?
Do you underline?
Do you write on the margins?
Do you write on a notebook?
Something else?

Read, with notes in the margins and points of specific interest marked in color. Notebook kept for commentary and connections to other works.

I underline, and I write in the margins. I need to start taking notes in a book or on my comoputer as well. I also try to read sections multiple times, but that's just because I always miss shit on the first read.

Get at my level

Attached: P_20180801_185146.jpg (3072x4096, 2.43M)

idk, look up the existing translations and check out the recent ones

o my rubber capital

But did you actually read it?

I usually just read.

I need to finish Vaziulin's "The October Revolution and Early-Stage Socialism within the Logic of History". University work keeps me too busy though

I'm waiting for a reply.

I just started reading The Unique and its Property. The translation from Portugal is quite good and the book was difficult to buy because it's sold out in every big store, so I bought it in a book fair about a year ago. I must say Stirner is quite the writer, this is a really fun book to read.

Found today this little gem at my local thrift store.

Attached: IMG_20180802_165226.jpg (2448x3264, 1.51M)

The Portuguese Communist Party divides Capital's 3 books in 8 tomes. I just counted the pages on their website and it's like 4000 pages. Is that the norm in other editions? I know that the party's editions are always full of notes so maybe that's it. I still haven't bought it though because it's pretty expensive and I've been reading on marxists.org. How are your versions?

Reading book III at moment


Well, counting only the original content I think it gets nowhere near 4000 pages. With the additional content it gets a little more close. I have to count when I get home.

~2.200 pages of original content, ~2.600 with everything (brazilian portuguese)

Counting all three capital books. Book III only: ~940 original content, ~980 everything

Look at this:
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-tomo-i-karl-marx/101272
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-tomo-ii-karl-marx/101253
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-tomo-iii-karl-marx/101259
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-livro-segundo-tomo-iv-karl-marx/15677053
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-livro-segundo-tomo-v-karl-marx/15677054
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-vi-karl-marx/15677055
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-tomo-vii-karl-marx/17436041
bertrand.pt/livro/o-capital-livro-terceiro-tomo-viii-karl-marx/20086139

It's quite absurd

How do you guys feel about the Penguin translations and books? They any good?

Waiting for the first two pictures to arrive, currently reading the third one. It's about the history of Puerto Rico from the American invasino in 1898 and onwards. I don't know if the authors are explicitly Marxists, but one of them is a member of the Working People's Party of Puerto Rico (which is Dem Soc actually), and they have cited Lenin and talked about the Marxist perspective of some events.

Attached: prsigam.jpg (1314x302 160.78 KB, 80.94K)

Can anybody tell me if the causes and costs of depository institution failures is still highly accredited in academia?
Also waiting for something from Leonid Kantorovich.

Attached: 20180807_172726.jpg (3264x1840, 1.22M)