>He wasn’t.
He was.
>Das Kapital was just a bad book in terms of economic theory regardless of its anthropological value.
Das Kapital is a great book in both economic and anthropologic terms.
>Economists tended to discard Marx long before Lenin.
No they didn't.
>Hm. I am not sure I understand the connection.
You should try reading Das Kapital.
Re:What is money, anyway?
by LudwigNagasena on Monday March 28, 2022 @03:06PM
(#30834323)
Well, if you want to know opinion of his contemporaries you should read what they have written. Also, the third volume has a preface by Engels that tries to deflect criticism of contemporary economists.
> You should try reading Das Kapital.
Well, maybe you should try re-reading it, because as far as I understand it, it doesn’t say anything close to that; though I am sure there is an interpretation that claims so as there are dozens of various contradictory Marx’s interpretations.
Get some self awareness man, I was pointing out how combative without substance your comment was.
"No, you're wrong. That's not how it was."
Re:What is money, anyway?
by LudwigNagasena on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @03:45AM
(#30839906)
What is asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.
He wasn’t.
> And when he came up with "Das Kapital" it was one way of interpreting the nascent, unlimited capitalism of the industrial revolution.
Das Kapital was just a bad book in terms of economic theory regardless of its anthropological value.
> Because of that, Western society tends to discard Marx.
Economists tended to discard Marx long before Lenin.
> I think Marx is as relevant as he ever was
Hm. I am not sure I understand the connection.