That's where it goes full Marx. I think if you were able to still follow along for most of it, you probably have a decent idea of what he was trying to convey. If you don't understand the harder parts now, that's fine. Don't beat yourself up over not understanding it all, all at once. I plan on going back over it later on just because I didn't really get the later parts either. I think the big take away is understanding what value, labor, and the other compartments are because a lot will build on that. Das Kapital gets into some formulas and abstract vs concrete labor but even these concepts, you can just look up for little refreshers.
I think the main thing is that you are trying to better understand it from a scholarly perspective. Take your time and maybe pick a few easier reads here and there so you don't feel like you are always trying to force through the rough stuff.
If you are Stateside, they really don't prep you for reading this kind of stuff. But I guess expecting to take a class in high school on Marxist thought is just silly since they only want to produce wage slaves.
Principles of Communism is great for an intro. It's really easy to read too. I recommend it first over the Manifesto because I feel like it does a better job paying out the framework.
Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds is a great historical text about the history of Communism/The USSR with contrasts to Capitalism/Fascism.
State and Revolution is probably a good entry point into I guess real theory. It's gonna read a bit like it was written 100 years ago and Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, and others that I've read so far all read in this almost ramble-y dense way that isn't comment nowadays. Rev doesn't do it so hard.
Wage Labor and Capital is as another said, a good precursor to Das Kapital. I like it because it starts to get you to think about everything in a lens of labor and value of labor, and what really is surplus and a bit more. It starts out easy but like 3 chapters in it goes full bore Marx.
For Das Kapital, there is a podcast on Spotify called Reading with Comrades I think. It's done with a professor that has done 6 reading groups on the book and he does a great job of explaining the tough bits. But after a while it feels very same-y so maybe listen in chunks.
I remember about 2 years ago on the horror subreddit, there was a discussion about how the new Candyman was gonna be all political unlike the original and people were so sick of horror movies injecting social commentary all the time. I stopped taking that sub seriously after that.
Disclaimer: I daily drive, including write code, on a Ferris Sweep.
Each of my 4 thumb keys are tap for space, tab, enter, and backspace. But I hold one of those keys and I enter a dedicated layer for navigation, a 10-key number pad, a custom symbol layer, and my media and F-keys.
It does take a bit of getting used to but the trade off is holding an extra key compared to having to lift my hand off of home row and moving to arrows, number row, number pad, etc. I basically never have to look at where my hands are and still retain 100% functionality of a full size board.
Is that Chrono Trigger like combo strikes I see? 🤔
Don't. Don't give me hope...
For for real though, this actually looks really good. I appreciate how the kept the spirit of how the game "feels" while modernizing the graphics and gameplay.
It's the same energy as the reddit users that go all the way to /r/vegan just to post counterarguments on like any post or say shit like "steak tastes good" in order to own the vegoons. Then they immediately throw a hissy fit about vegans shoving their beliefs down their throat.
Like, I'm still a baby vegan or whatever, but even in the beforetimes, I saw a substantially greater number of non-vegans being aggressive towards vegans than the other way around. Like, we get it Chad, bacon is amazing, and you need cow titty juice because protein is super important to you and there is no other way you could get an adequate amount.
I was accused of using a straw man fallacy just last week on reddit because I said someone could go a single meal without eating animal protein and be perfectly fine.
I'm not keen on all the rhetorical fallacies that exist but simply retorting to an argument by screeching "XYZ FALLACY" is no way to live your life. And even if you successfully recognize that someone uses a fallacy, so what? That doesn't win an argument. Like, tell me why someone wouldn't be able to survive a meal without animal protein ffs.
![roux [he,they]](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/eee278bb-4f04-47d6-a58f-3c459b3ca25e.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
☹️