Hey everyone, it’s time to finish!

Join comrade oscardejarjayes’ 2026 run if you haven’t already!

No problem! I’m familiar with the Penguin version, but the one on Marxists.org is the original version, I believe, which is what you may be reading.

The “natural form” is the physicsl commodity in particular, ie a football, while the “value form” is the commodity in context of all other commodities, ie the football as an exchange-value. So you got it right!

As for the “bearer of value,” I’m not sure what you mean by this, it could be a difference in translation. All commodities bear their own value, but this value is made up of the labor to produce it, combined with the previous labor to create its raw materials, process them, and the amount of tool usage used up in the process.

I think you’re talking about how 1 coat is equal to x yards of linen, just like a car is work x number of playstations. Money will become the universal exchanger soon, but Marx is trying to show that exchange-value is something that only exists in context with other commodities.

It is! Literally, means fire chicken.

Yea it’s nakedly ridiculous to expect a socialist society to treat copyright like it’s holy.

From what I can tell it’s largely slop about the “regime” not respecting copyright, and “failing to create their own goods” and other such liberal brainworms.

Almost certainly, I agree. Looking it up just brings up news articles from ROK outlets, and a few from the DPRK.

I’ll see what I can find! They say “라선령선 매운김치맛” (Rasonryong-son Meun-kimchimat, or “Rasonryong-son Spicy Kimchi Flavor” from what I can tell with my broken Korean) on them, seeing what that brings up.

DPRK produces a domestic version of 불닭 (buldak) in 라선시 (Rason). Some are sold in the PRC.

Yep, truly.

You can either have these companies “worker-owned” by having them cooperstively owned, or publicly owned. Both are anti-Marxist if this is supposed to be a long-term structure, as the author makes them seem. Marx advocated for collectivizing production and distribution so as to plan the economy and not be subject to the whims of the market. I will say, it’s possible for people of any ideology to show up in a country due to the sheer variety in personal experience.

Excellent review! I really enjoyed reading it. Eurocentrism and intense brainworms aside, I think it’s a useful experiment to see why this market “socialism” is qualitatively different from existing socialist market economies, and why the author’s desires are a recipe for disaster.

In socialist market economies, public ownership is the principle aspect, governing the large firms and key industries. Market mechanisms are largely kept for underdeveloped and secondary industries, as a means to facilitate socializing production for better integration into the public sector down the line.

In the author’s proposal, there appears to be no distinction on the size, scope, or key aspects, just a general “markets are necessary” brainworm. This goes completely beyond a Marxist analysis of the potential utility of markets as a temporary measure for small and secondary industries into full-on liberalism. Thus, the author’s recommendations would lead to a restoration of capitalism.

This is, of course, ignoring the complaints against “Stalinism,” or the fantasies of lacking democracy, or suffering under early socialism, or the Eurocentrism. Even if we may agree that markets can have utility in specific, localized contexts, the author’s brainworms force it into a seeming panacea. Just jibberish to justify capitalism, seeing markets as a long-term and static system, rather than something coming into and exiting being.

Oh fuck

Incredibly cool.

Trotskyite garbage. China is in no way Bonapartist, class struggle continues under socialism and therefore checks against corruption are necessary, otherwise you make the same mistakes the soviets did with and after corn-man. Trotskyites show that reading theory without meaningful practice divorces you from the real working class movement, causing you to side with your class interests, ie that of the labor aristocracy.

Then see if you can make that a habit! Or change up your home to be less distracting, if you can!

I read between 15 and 30 minutes a day, but pretty consistently. The key is to be consistent, and eventually time takes over! If you feel you get distracted, try focusing on your environment, maybe light a candle, make some coffee or tea, snuggle under a blanket with some pillows, anything!

As for what to read, I say focus on fiction! Whatever interests you. I recommend trying something modern, one of my favorite modern titles is Piranesi, and it brought me back to my childhood with how immersed I got. Once you develop a habit and a love of reading, gradually expand to non-fiction, theory, etc. I also recommend reading 2 books at a time, one fiction and one non-fiction, at set times in the day.

That’s what works for me personally!

Thanks! Hopefully it makes somewhat of a difference.

They actually do matter! I was trying to keep it simple, but let’s say the cost of tooling used up and raw materials was 15 minutes. Those would not change, but the new technique turns the 45 minutes to make it down to 15, it would go from 1 hour of socially necessary labor time to 30 minutes. Living and dead labor, current labor-power and formerly crystalized labor.