The text explores capitalism not simply as an economic system, but as a self-reproducing social relation. Drawing on Marx, Bruno Leipold, and Søren Mau, the essay argues that capitalist domination operates on three interconnected levels: personal domination in the workplace, structural domination through property relations and dependence on wage labor, and impersonal domination through the competitive imperatives of capital itself. Rather than treating these as separate phenomena, the article shows how they reinforce one another, explaining why capitalist society persists across changing governments and political programs. Ultimately, the essay argues that capitalism endures because it is reproduced through the ordinary activities of everyday life, raising fundamental questions about what genuine emancipation would require.

This article examines a long-standing debate in Marxian value theory: is a commodity’s value created in production, or is it only realised through exchange? Using the example of an unsold banana, I argue that both positions capture essential aspects of Marx’s theory but become one-sided when taken in isolation.

Drawing on contemporary international debates and Hegelian philosophy, the article proposes a synthesis in which value is understood as both rooted in production and socially validated through exchange. Rather than treating these as competing explanations, I show how Marx’s theory depends on the dynamic relationship between them. The article argues that value is neither a purely material property nor a mere market convention, but a historically specific social relation that unfolds across production, circulation, and exchange.

This article argues that Capital should be read not as a work of history, but as a work of immanent critique. Rather than tracing the historical development of capitalism, Marx develops the conceptual logic of its fundamental categories—commodity, value, money, and capital—to reveal how they structure social life and appear as natural, objective realities.

Drawing on Hegel, Michael Heinrich, Moishe Postone, and Theodor Adorno, the article contends that Marx’s method is a logical unfolding of historically specific social forms rather than a chronological narrative. It argues that the enduring relevance of Capital lies in its critical method: a way of analysing society through its own categories to expose their contradictions and historical limits.
LINK

This essay reconsiders the category of “woman” through the lens of Marxian value theory rather than biology or identity. Critiquing both economic reductionism and post-workerist feminism, it argues that women occupy a structural position that capitalism depends upon but cannot fully incorporate into its logic of value.

Drawing on Roswitha Scholz’s theory of value-dissociation and contemporary value-form theory, the essay develops an account of reproductive labour, gender, and social reproduction as constitutive yet excluded conditions of capitalist society. It proposes that gender is best understood not as a natural or purely cultural category, but as a historically specific social relation produced alongside—and partially outside—the value form.

This essay examines contemporary anti-trans politics through the lenses of critical theory, psychoanalysis, and Marxian social critique. It argues that hostility toward trans people cannot be understood simply as disagreement over science or policy, but as the projection of contradictions within the capitalist gender order onto a figure that embodies what that order cannot reconcile.

Drawing parallels with the social logic of antisemitism, the essay explores how prejudice transforms living people into symbolic “problems” to be managed or eliminated. It contends that the struggle for trans existence is ultimately a struggle against the social structures that require exclusion, ambiguity, and abjection in order to sustain themselves.

This essay offers a critical reassessment of revolutionary violence through Marx, Walter Benjamin, and value-form theory. Beginning with a critique of an influential Swedish communist text on militant politics, it argues that much of the radical left misapplies Marx’s categories and therefore misunderstands both the nature of value and the political function of violence.

The essay distinguishes between violence that reproduces existing social relations and violence that transforms them, arguing that communist politics cannot be reduced to militancy alone. It concludes that without a rigorous critique of capitalism’s abstract forms of domination, anti-capitalist movements risk displacing systemic contradictions onto particular groups, repeating the logic of scapegoating rather than overcoming it.