Give it to me straight lads, give me 10 books that will most increase my cultural capital / patricianhood. I live in the UK btw.
the illiad
>>842886
That macro is strange. "Patrician" shouldn't be translated with "noble family" because there was the Nobilitas which was something else then patricians.
Also I say what I always say: Get Cambridge/Oxford companions/handbooks and take it up from there on the subjects you are most interested in.
The Illiad
The Odyssey
The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius
Plato's Republic
The things to himself(also known as Meditations) by Marcus Aurelius
Aristotle's Politics and the Metaphysics(warning, tough reading)
Histories by Herodotus
The Aeneid by Vergil
The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
I could name a lot more, but it's a start.
>>842886
The Wealth of Nations
Capital: Critique of Political Economy
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
The Prince
The Divine Comedy
Anna Karenina
Pick one of Hemingway's books
and uh.... well that's 7 close enough.
>>842912
>Marx
>before Ricardo, Hegel or Mill
Pirate the chartered financial analyst 2016. Learn how money works. Its over 800 pages of autism, but dont be a bitch nigga.
>>842886
>that will most increase my cultural capital
You tried this yesterday, and you still look like a fuckwit for not knowing what capital is or that "cultural capital" is a vacuous term. Read Bourdieu.
>>842912
Add:
Second Treatises of Government
Book that shows world map throughout the ages (anything general)
>>842919
Meh, I think Wealth and Kapital are a companion set.
Plus it's important to read Marx so as to put Marxists and Commies in their place.
>>842929
Pair with Leviathan and yes.
I like reading things in pairs or sets.
>>842944
Leviathan is hardly helpful for putting "commies in their place" though. There is a reason Marx loved Hobbes.
>>842930
Well if your purpose is to put commies in their place, skip wealth and capital in favour of Kołakowski.
>>842952
But I like Hobbes...
Really I just like reading things in pairs. If you got a better companion/counter for Locke though please do tell.
>>842959
Haven't read so I can't recommend, but hey you've given me something to read at least.
>>842959
>Well if your purpose is to put commies in their place, skip wealth and capital in favour of Kołakowski.
Or just read Critical theorists like Horkheimer, who basically annihilates Marxism.
>>842963
I like Hobbes too and he IS a "counter" for Locke. You could read CB Macpherson on the connection between Hobbes and Marx. Also I love the Cambridge Companion to Leviathan: http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/companions/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9781139001571
>>842975
>Horkheimer
You've got a very ideological view, don't you.
>>843000
What do you mean?
>>843010
Horkheimer isn't really capable of providing a critique of the communist praxis of working classes because his work was restricted to ideological critique. Critical theory doesn't result in the shooting of people.
>>843041
>Horkheimer isn't really capable of providing a critique of the communist praxis of working classes because his work was restricted to ideological critique.
He was able, and rightly so, to critique the idea that as long as capitalism exists, workers are exploited, regardless of the state of the country or the capitalistic system it has.
He critiqued several times the idea that a capitalist state could never work in the interest of workers, which it can, and has, as social democratic states like in Northern Europe has proven, where workers and union rights essentially overrule any claim to property rights that a capitalist has.
So, capitalism can actually function as a tool for the emancipation of workers, which is something Marxists cannot possibly cope with.
>>843050
>He was able, and rightly so, to critique the idea that as long as capitalism exists, workers are exploited, regardless of the state of the country or the capitalistic system it has.
So where does Horkheimer claim the c in C+c comes from?
>>843075
I don't understand what you're saying. You might have to use language people can understand.
>>843082
He uses basic Marxist vocabulary. Just like Horkheimer did (Ausbeutung, Entfremdung etc.) without "annihilating" Marx at all.
>>843050
>He critiqued several times the idea that a capitalist state could never work in the interest of workers, which it can, and has, as social democratic states like in Northern Europe has proven, where workers and union rights essentially overrule any claim to property rights that a capitalist has.
Where? Are you confusing him with Bernstein or somebody?
>>843096
>Where?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBaY09Qi-w0
>>843082
Maybe you didn't actually mean exploitation then. Might try Capital.
>>843099
Horkheimer has confused absolute and relative emiseration, a failure chiefly observable in his confusion between value and use-value.
>>843099
Well he simply says that exploitation isn't an ever ongoing process (which disregards globalization and the exploitation of the third world completely). This is not the annihilation of Marx but pretty much a repetition of an old argument: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionismus (I refuse to repeat Luxemburgs et. al. responses to it here). He doesn't mention stuff like unions or social democrats.
Also empirically he might have been right for a short time span (post-war until the 70s) and in a certain setting (cold war-competition). However he lacks the meticulous analysis of the bourgeois economy of his times to really attack Marx and his foundation.
>>843116
This.
>>843116
>a failure chiefly observable in his confusion between value and use-value.
What is the legitimate difference between the two?
To me it seems like simply a rhetorical device similar to the supposed difference between personal and private property.
>>843130
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_value
>>843145
Right, so a rhetorical device.
>>843130
Marx came to the post utilitarian conclusion that use was realisation in sale before bourgeois economics. Thus the differentiation between value in realised quantity and use value in realisation for an imagined or actual purpose. Sausages feed a man but their price is determined by embodied socially average labour power. Emiseration is reduction in share of total social production per head (value) not sausages consumed per head (use-value).
>>843163
>Sausages feed a man but their price is determined by embodied socially average labour power.
I'm pretty sure that their price is determined by supply and demand, and tariffs if they are applicable.
If I'm not mistaken the discussion of value is in Ch. I of Capital I. Am I right?
>>842906
This is probably the best start you could make.
A man who doesn't know his Homer at the very least is a pleb of the lowest sort.
>>843344
>The price is not the same as value.
The price is the value as far as the market is concerned.
>>842886
https://youtu.be/fF0ZmIf7H9k
>>843364
That's an Arnold Schwarzenegger mobile game commercial
>>843351
Yeah but we are talking Marx.
>>843535
well, Marx is wrong
>>843351
>The price is the value as far as the market is concerned.
Yes! You've finally got the transformation problem! Realisation! The composition of socially average necessary labour time across different time periods vary, as do the politicised concepts of adequate consumption in deparments IIa and IIb, thus some commodities are realised in new value circumstances.
It is almost as if bourgeois economists don't realise that Marx (and social relations) are diachronic.
>>843174
>by supply and demand
This is a commonly held assertion amongst marginalists, I disagree, but it is reasonable for them to hold it
>and tariffs
Yep, you're under-read.
This is like saying that in the exposition of Capital 1-3 that the shares of the total social product devolve into wages, reproducing capital, and rent. It is a category error where you conflate different scales of analysis indicating you don't have mastery over your analysis.
