Album Review: Death - Leprosy

Death - Leprosy

Combat Records - 1988

9/10

For years, the second Death record almost acted as the standard death metal record that popped into my head whenever the genre was mentioned. This would be before I fell in love with their debut, but I’ll save the spiel. Leprosy is one of those weird instances where one thing is cleaned up while another is compromised, yet there’s very little to complain about. While somewhat of an extension of Scream Bloody Gore a year prior, there’s a more compact feeling with only the smallest hint of an ear for rhythmic superiority.

How this plays out in the long run is favorable, however the spillover prevents Bill Andrews from picking up where Chris Reifert left off, in my humblest of opinions. Thus, the drumming feels like it struggles to keep up with the leads, and they ride on a similar track for the entire train ride. It also could have stood to be just a bit lower in the mix. This is a petty complaint, but I think something worth acknowledging when dissecting a legendary band. That said, I have to hand it to him on “Open Casket,” with the fills being nailed perfectly, and it contains one of my favorite drum lines on any song in the catalog.

If you can get past the overbearing presence of the only mildly flawed drumming, everything else is a gold mine. “Born Dead” rakes in tremolos like no other song, falling into the cracks of the chorus, and this swift swing into the fret-happy bridge is wonderful. Almost everything runs in phases, which I think allows it to surpass the opening, fuming title track in construction. “Leprosy” is far more structured, and allows it to have much memorability, so the two pair together beautifully. The brevity of the songs, and the slightly cleaner leads allows it to show the contrast nicely.

Despite being a record built with speed in almost every corner, Leprosy displays the ability to slow down and gallop along when needed. It may be a bit sloppy at times, but it adds charm, and those sharp edges would be deburred on the next album. “Pull The Plug” showcases this nicely, especially with the deep, chug-oriented riffs under the chorus. A harsher atmosphere helps, as the different paces throughout the record feel organic.

Death is one of the best projects to study over their seven album career. Despite Chuck Schuldiner being the godfather of the genre, he didn’t drop his best work first and slowly crumble away like some of his Florida companions did. Instead, everything realizes a different dynamic, and this is where I think the earliest hints of rhythmic superiority show, if only a little. It manages to stay memorable, using different patterns to break up what would otherwise seem like a one trick pony; you just have to pay closer attention at times.

Understanding Capital Vol. 1 (Part 3), by Karl Marx

Welcome to Understanding Capital Vol. 1, where the goal is to analyze all angles of Capital, extract the important points, and summarize as much information as possible. The purpose here is less about inserting opinions on the work or what's said, and more about laying everything out to someone who has never read it, or someone who has a tough time reading it, yet can get a full understanding of the information.

Part three of Capital is an interesting one in that it starts with three chapters that involve the mathematical components of capitalism, and how it allows for surplus value and its maintenance. The basic terminology of labor practice falls within these, but then it caps off with a much longer chapter on that specific component with all of the details of working days laid out. Admittedly, this section was a bit tougher at times, especially when the mathematic examples got introduced, so I will try and summarize in a more practical way. If you've made it this far, you're on a solid fast track.

Chapter 7: The Labor Process And The Process Of Producing Surplus Value

The labor process is, simply put, all about producing use values through the relationship between humans and nature. A material condition that exists in nature is transformed by a human's own accord to get an end result, a use value. Marx notes that this is not an exclusively human trait, giving the example of a bee constructing its hive. The difference is that an architect has an idea in their mind before going to work on it, where the bee does not; it innately works as part of its own makeup. In both situations, however, labor is a transformative process that has purpose, with demands that require attention, some more desirable than others.

Marx then goes on to break down the three main components; the subject of labor, the instruments of labor, and the labor itself. The raw material is a subject of labor, for example, however it's important to note that not every subject of labor is a raw material. A raw material gets its form from a previous alteration through labor. Think of steel stock in a machine shop, or perhaps the 2x4's you buy at Home Depot. That's a raw material, having gone from a process that was once a tree (the object of nature) and is now a subject of labor (the 2x4). An instrument of labor is, simply put, a tool, machine, or something needed to transform the subject into something else. Some things can function as both, the example given that cattle are an instrument of labor for the use of producing fertilizer, but a raw material if used to produce steak. The steak completely transforms the subject into something else, and it can't be returned to the form of an instrument. When used for fertilizer, however, it can be used over and over.

Once these use values are produced from these three components, they then take the form of exchange value for the capitalist. The labor has all been transformed into the final product, a commodity, where Marx looks at the fetishism of commodities. Every commodity can be broken down into how much labor went into it, highlighting the social relations between owner and worker. A kitchen table is a good example. Assuming it's all made of wood, you can see just how many labor processes existed within it. Getting the wood from nature and turning it into raw materials; turning the raw materials into workable pieces by cutting it up with saws, drilling holes, routing, lathing, or anything else that's necessary; assembling everything; sanding, finishing, and any final touches. Labor is not static, but it's something few people will recognize in every day objects, which can only exist from labor processes.

Moving back to the social relationship, this shows the difference between productive consumption and individual consumption. The former is what capitalists do, consuming to produce commodities in order to produce more commodities (exchange value). The latter is what a worker does in order to satisfy a need or want (use value). What does this matter in regards to the social relationship between the worker and owner? Because the capitalist owns everything that's being purchased and produced, they have complete control over the entire labor process, alienating the worker from their work, and them becoming a commodity in and of themselves, as discussed in Part 2.

This all shows that the surplus value is created from the worker's time and effort. The value of a product is always the same as what a capitalist starts with after purchasing their commodity in order to make more money, until labor is introduced. Continuation of production moves beyond a definite point. "Skilled" and "unskilled" labor don't differ in this regard, only at the rate that they create value. Regardless of how much is created, the capitalist still owns everything created, and is able to take what previously had a fixed value and profit on what now has more value through the commodity of human labor.

Chapter 8: Constant Capital And Variable Capital

Constant capital and variable capital are about as self-explanatory as they sound. Constant capital's value remains the same throughout the whole labor process, where variable capital changes depending on where you are in the process. As we said, the value of the instruments, the subjects, and the labor power itself are all transferred to the final product at the end; think of the table example. Value never changed, it just accumulated from the tree, to the 2x4, to the individual parts, to the assembled table, to the finished table; thus, the final product holds the value of every process together.

Marx uses an example with cotton and weaving. The cotton itself and the value of the weaving machine are realized through motion, which the worker has transformed into a new product. If $10 worth of cotton is weaved into five shirts, each shirt holds $2 of the cotton's value. If the machine costs $100 and creates 100 shirts, each shirt holds $1 from the machine. All of this is constant.

What isn't factored into this is the labor power value, the variable value, which is the important part of this. It explains why capitalists want workers to work as quickly as possible for as long as possible. The more raw materials they consume, using as many means of production as possible, the more surplus value is generated from the labor that can be taken as profit by the owner. Labor adds the new value, depending entirely on the circumstances. If one worker is used to run two machines, that worker will produce twice as much value as just running one machine. Two labor processes are in motion from one worker, and that one worker is now adding value twice as fast.

Chapter 9: Rate Of Surplus Value

Chapter nine is one that uses the most math, one of the tougher chapters to read, so it's easier to break it down in a quick, practical way. Capitalists figure out their capital by noting the total between constant value, variable value, and how much surplus they can get from the labor. Let's use simple terms of money for the sake of understanding easier. If you work 10 hours per day, produce $20 of value in that day, but only take home $10, that other $10 is the surplus that was extracted by the capitalist. That means the first 5 hours of your workday was necessary labor time, and the other 5 was surplus labor. It becomes easy to see how this accumulates over several years, and how capitalists profit on workers' time and energy. Your wage value was completely reproduced in one work day after the first five hours.

Another way to put this is the rate of exploitation. Once you figure out how much value it takes to produce what you're paid, anything after that is a gift to the capitalist and the exploitation of your labor. Example? Suppose an electrician service owner has 10 electricians working for him. If each electrician does $200 worth of work, but only takes home $100 at the end of the work day, their wage value is made twice per day despite only taking home half of that. Each electrician gets $100, and the capitalist who owns the company gets $1,000. He took home $100 from each worker, and this repeats each workday.

We see today that capitalists will argue that workdays can't be reduced, or else they would have to raise prices to make up for the value lost in the worker taking a shorter day. Either way, they will still get the same surplus value ratio, or rate of exploitation, it just may happen in shorter increments. It's also used against the argument of raising minimum wage, despite the surplus value always significantly surpassing the value of the worker's labor every day. The gig economy shows this the most, such as with an Uber driver making a fraction of what you paid for the ride.

Chapter 10: The Working Day

One of the longer chapters in Capital, this one very much observes the working hours and conditions during Marx's time. While some may think this holds less relevancy now, the purpose of it is to discuss class struggle, which is still a very important concept. Essentially, it shows that the state will not solve the issues of the class struggle, and that concessions must be won through force and working class solidarity.

This begins with the difference between necessary labor and surplus labor; the former is the labor value that generates your wage, where the latter is labor time on top that you're not paid for, tying into the surplus value concept described earlier. These two together are what determine the length of the working day. The capitalist is aware of moral and social limits to the working day that are needed in order for the laborer to continue working, which is the only thing that prevents the working day from filling 24 hours. Thus, the capitalist is just capital personified, only interested in generating value for the sake of exchange. The more living labor they're able to take in, the more capital they can create. Their overall position is that since they paid for the use-value of the worker, so they decide on how they're used.

The worker's perspective is quite different. We now know that labor is a unique commodity in that it's embodied in actual people. If you purchase an object, like a car, you can do what you want. You can drive it, or you can take it apart and use the parts for something else. It's a use-value, and isn't meant for the sake of exchange or profit; this is not preventing another person from living, or taking a toll on anyone's life. A person is not the same, which shows links to slavery, in a way. A wage is the pay for a day's worth of labor value, but the working day far exceeds what's needed to produce that value, breaking the exchange process that we mentioned up until this point.

What this all shows is that the workers and owners have interests opposing each other. So class solidarity is important for shortening working days, bettering conditions, etc. as the state will not intervene and make this happen, which is highlighted all throughout this long chapter in examples. Strikes, stoppages, slowdowns, and sabotage done by the people are all ways that legislation can enact laws in favor of the workers. Otherwise, the capitalist determines all of the free time anyone gets, and the idea is to shorten that window of time where this is the case. Capital will try to shorten moments for food, bathroom breaks, or any "non-productive" time as much as possible. Look at Amazon workers pissing in bottles due to not being allotted time for the restroom, without the threat of losing their job, income, and ability to survive.

An important note is that surplus isn't unique to capital, as it's been done in situations of socialist and feudal nations alike throughout history. The difference is about why it's produced; surplus should be produced for use, not exchange, the way it is for capitalists. An example of doing this for use would be a farmer stocking up on corn in the fall and freezing it to use throughout the winter. An example of doing it for exchange would be buying up farms in an area, and creating food (through other peoples' labor) to profit. Only people who have money are able to gain access to what is needed. This shows how the limitless greed of capital can only be stopped by striking against the capitalist and stopping profits, or pushing collectively for state intervention, which will not happen on its own. Land production certainly still exists under capitalism, but it was transformed into a mode of production. Not being tied to the land is what separates the capitalist ruling class from the former feudal ruling class, which gave them the upper hand in transforming society to their interests. 

Labor power would eventually collapse on itself without worker agitation and forced state intervention, working itself to death. Progression of policy at the time is shown in this chapter, but let's look at a more recent example from the 20th century. The New Deal helped greatly up through the 1980s in America, until those worker wins were slowly stripped away, which shows why "Democratic Socialism" isn't enough. Concessions are still left in the hands of the capitalists and can be stripped away any time. Centuries of class struggle are what lead to any and all of these concessions.

Chapter 11: Rate And Mass Of Surplus Value

Here is where Marx talks about how the capitalist can accrue value, through lengthening the workday to get more labor time, bringing on more workers to speed up production within that time, or even lay off workers as fewer can generate more value with newer processes. More constant capital (means of production and raw material) allows for the ability to invest in more variable capital (workers). Thus, the greater the variable capital, the greater the surplus value (profit). Workers are the only ones running the machines and working the modes of production, giving them a use. Such a social relation reveals that in a way, capitalism causes the commodities to work the living labor (humans), not the other way around.

It's noted in this short chapter that some industries require far more advance constant capital beyond what one person can begin with, so state subsidies will play a role. Why is this important? It shows how the state in the hands of corporations bends to the will of capital, and introduces finance capital, an entirely new concept.

Conclusion

Honestly, Chapter 11 summarizes the entire section nicely, and little more needs to be added. The important takeaway here is to know the difference between constant and variable capital, the social relations caused by the two, how surplus value is created from those social relations, and what class struggle means/why it's important.

Album Review: The Beatles - The Beatles

The Beatles - The Beatles

Apple - 1968

9.5/10

Really, the best way to sum up the self-titled Beatles album, commonly known as “The White Album” would be this; on my first listen, I didn’t care much for it. On my fifth listen, I found it intriguing as hell. On my twentieth listen, I fucking loved it. A double-album with wild popularity that clocks in past the hour and a half mark is certainly a force to be reckoned with, and it really shouldn’t be a surprise that it’s a long journey of “what the hell is the appeal here?” “is this just a bunch of filler?” and “damn, this smokes hard!” Contrary to popular belief, no, you do not need to be high or tripping to enjoy this, because needing a supplement would mean the music isn’t good enough on its own.

Indeed, Paul McCartney and co. made that fatal flaw with Yellow Submarine, not The Beatles. It takes patience, not drugs, two things I seldom associate with myself. Yet, I managed to soak in every bit of this with repeat listens through the years. What does it come down to? Four corners of a broad picture; dark psychedelic, warm psychedelic, political climate reaction, and horny spouting. But what makes it interesting is that none of them can be pinned down to one outlet. In fact, so much of this is so different that the inconsistency becomes the constant factor in and of itself; it’s the common connection that everything shares, and a massive reflection of the world at the time. I understand how generic this sounds, but hear me out.

First off, both psychedelic angles here play the most crucial role, bouncing off of each other to show a gradual descent into disorientation and uncertainty. But what do I mean by “warm” and “dark?” This should be obvious. The goofy energy of “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” represents comfort within a shell that’s still somewhat nonsensical. It has little in the vein of disorientation, unlike “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” a counterpart focusing on the same band aspect but uses harder production to give off a very mildly bleak tension beside a piano. At the end of the day, though, it’s catchy, and the rhythm section is on par with the other stronger rock ‘n roll licks. Folkier elements from the previous era can be found in the acoustic “Blackbird,” channeling the rising duo Simon & Garfunkel. Lyrically and poetically, the flow allows it to slip right in with the rest of this chaotic dynamic. Putting “Piggies” right after this was truly a good move, as the harpsichord and symphonic instrumentation pull the listener into a different direction of uncertainty. By this point, most of the catchier aspects are behind us.

But what of the dark, metal-adjacent “Helter Skelter?” Riding on completely opposing energy, this is a riff-driven number with clouds and must, letting loose the rare vocal fury that shakes the very foundation of the late ‘60s rock era. It should only be natural that everything fits within the overton window of “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” and “Helter Skelter,” with only one exception that we’ll return to later. The perfect balance shows itself in “The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill,” one as goofy as the former but shedding itself of the comfort aspect. “Cry Baby Cry” on the other hand is dry, dreary, and reflects a final step before a complete descent into the full trip introduced in the unsettling “Wild Honey Pie.” Callbacks to this track drop harder hints as the record progresses; whether intentional or not. These can often be snuck into the more straightforward tracks, even centered on political mockery and hornier ones around women.

Speaking of which, the Vietnam-era Cold War scaries pair very well with the acid-rock escapism element. Opening with “Back In The U.S.S.R.” was a bold move. The surfy tune is one of the least representative of the rest of the album, yet catches the attention of the masses fast. Truly a near-punk rock move, singing of such controversial topics under a clean and simplistic (yet oddly sarcastic) umbrella. There’s so much space between it and the dreary “Revolution I,” a far more fitting number utilizing gang vocals. It brings us back to reality for a hot second, and in hindsight it’s no wonder this caused such controversy in its time. Yet, speaking of the girls from different Soviet states does lend a nod towards the upcoming “Sexy Sadie,” “Why Don’t We Do It In The Road,” and “Julia,” three songs that have almost nothing in common besides the sexual expression. The last of those is wickedly overlooked, in my opinion, almost calling back to “Yesterday” through an acidic cry for help.

That leaves us with the elephant in the room; “Revolution 9.” This is the full collapse of the constant battle between reality and a bad trip. Little pieces of both of these recurring themes fully surface in every corner of the album, the more relatable political or love songs being the obvious broadcast of stability. The darker, or dreary tunes, however, have been hinting at this since the dramatic shift between opener “Back In The U.S.S.R.” fading into “Dear Prudence,” leaving things memorable enough while dropping a hint that something just isn’t right. “Revolution 9” realizes every single corner at once, reaching the point of being unable to stay above the water and invoking panic, disorientation, uncertainty, political strife, and ultimately an artistic representation of fear. Sure, this may have been a controversial John Lennon idea that basically furthered the mini-Satanic panic, but this is my review, my interpretation, and how it fits for my purposes.

Lyrics have seldom been mentioned here, and that’s done on purpose for two reasons. For one, they should be interpreted by the listener due to how unclear all of it is; everything written here is how I look at it. Secondly, it’s more about the music than it is about the lyrics, which I think people overlook. Too many focus on the lyrics and not the artistic construction, which likely points to why so many call certain songs “fillers” or don’t appreciate “Revolution 9.” If every song represents a film director’s take on The Beatles, that’s easily a David Lynch-type representation. Focusing on the wrong parts of an album can yield the same results of doing that in a film, but I guess we can’t promise that every film dork will make the connection.

So really, what is there to criticize from my end? For one, “Birthday,” while being one of the most notable tracks, feels out of place more than anything. As one of my least favorites from the album, it’s important to note that it may ring in the same energy as “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da,” but fails to make the connection to anything else the way that one does. It’s hard to not fit in on an album where nothing fits in, but this one just feels like a blend between the boy band era revisited and a throwaway KISS song before KISS was even a thing. The only other issue is “Good Night,” less of a song and more of a closer. Capping off with “Revolution 9” would have been so much more compelling than this “awakening” send-off that also represents… going to sleep? I digress; these are such minor errors. Furthermore, I get a sensation that most will have completely different problems with The Beatles then I will anyway. 

What matters is that of the entire psychedelic era, this is The Beatles at their ballsiest, most controversial moment, and I can’t help but feel like this very album inspired so many ideas that came to fruition in the ‘70s, namely heavy metal and punk rock. Hell, even Metallica made a “black album” as an obvious nod (despite having virtually no musical ties to this). All I can say is that before you decide how you feel about it, listen to it several times. Different settings, different moods, and let it collect some dust before returning. Use drugs if you must, but if you walk away with nothing else, just know that they are not needed to enjoy this.

Album Review: Deicide - Legion

Deicide - Legion

R/C Records - 1992

9/10

In 1990, Deicide put out what I consider to be one of the greatest death metal records ever recorded. But literally anything after that is hit or miss, with the misses being more frequent as we move away from the debut. Their second record, Legion, is what I’ve always seen as the only one that grows from the exact same roots, before they would begin evolving as other bands of the style hit the scene. With this in mind, I find it to be a fun one to revisit as well from time to time.

The easiest criticism off the bat could be that Legion feels like a bit of a carbon copy of the debut, made even shorter. The littlest bit of polishing comes through, and there are far fewer of the background growls that were extremely present before. Building a foundation on this is certainly strong, as the style hones in on simpler rhythms that push forward with deep riffing and speed picking. Pummeling drums that don’t pop through the surface too much are added, giving the same straightforward feeling from the percussion. It also wouldn’t be early Deicide without the Kerry King inspired fast and whiny solos that amazingly work better here than they do in some Slayer songs.

But what sets this apart besides a few small notes? Mainly, the songwriting brings forth a dash of diversity. “Holy Deception” is easily one of the best songs from the early era. This one builds on steadier riffs that work into a faster eruption alongside explosive vocals. I also love the descending feelings of “Dead But Dreaming,” having a chorus that stands out. Opener “Satan-Spawn, The Caco-Daemon” lets on some nasty, evil snarls to show the momentum that this will carry early on, and the more concise progressions on “Repent To Die” leave a great aftertaste.

Maybe not a significant step forward in terms of new inspiration, but the sophomore Deicide record absolutely holds up, even beside its perfect predecessor. Lost is the completely raw and unrelenting simplicity, but gained is a slightly tighter presence, and things remain as consistent as ever. There isn’t much else I could ask for in this context.

Album Review: Galvanized - Prying Sight Of Imperfection

Galvanizer - Prying Sight Of Imperception

Everlasting Spew Records - 2021

8.5/10

Starting with some grindy roots, the Finnish death metal act Galvanizer have been creeping in for almost a decade now. Despite moving away from a reckless grindcore sound, their brand certainly shows the chaotic roots in a more refined fashion. You would think it takes influence from their next door neighbor, Sweden, but their sound is actually far closer to the Florida periphery. The sophomore album Prying Sight Of Imperception is what got my attention, focusing on a loose foundation under clearly defined ideas. 

For the most part, things are pretty one-dimensional. Marshy riffing with sharp percussion dominates the majority of this record, but the guitars aren’t so saturated to the point that they drown everything out. Vocally, it’s super guttural, riding the same muddy wave of the instruments. What lets this stand out is just how concise the leads are within an unsavory and thick foundation; the combo works wonders. Overlaying higher shrieks and letting booming bass punches through certainly boost the intensity at times.

Of course, some spots let the grinding background show more than others. “Blaze From Within” is a breakneck, quick hitter that focuses more on the brash speeds and attitude than it does on comprehensive construction. Similarly, the very next track “Chthonic Profanation” stretches this out and brings in more complex drum patterns. Its thrasher, borderline melodic bridge before the exit was certainly a welcomed surprise. So as typical as this style is, there’s still a fair amount of things worth listening deeper for.

It should go without saying that Prying Sight Of Imperception is aided by its brief runtime of a half hour, and the fact that there’s no emphasis on production. From the gate, this is an honest, right-to-the-face OSDM outfit that does everything I like about newer death metal bands. Nothing really goes the extra mile, but where it does go is great.

Listen -> Bandcamp

Album Review: Black Lava - Soul Furnace

Black Lava - Soul Furnace

Season Of Mist - 2022

5.5/10

Black Lava are an Australian blackened death metal act that dropped their debut full length late last year and only now hit my radar. Having no releases to their history, they somewhat spawned up with Soul Furnace out of nowhere. The love for medieval and lore takes things away from the typical dark/blasphemous themes, which I think impacted the music itself. This is not your typical angle of this brand.

Musically, things range from a nasty barrage of blasting and aggression under a super clean scope, to slow yet mighty sounding chugs. Not an inch of the surface is left raw, as the production causes the atmosphere to shower the listener with everything at once. The bass has that louder, springy presence, and even under the harsh tremolos, you can catch a glimpse of basically everything. Sounds like the perfect storm, right?

The answer depends on what you look for. For one, this amount of cleanliness causes the tracks to mush together just a little too much for my comfort. Despite the shorter runtime, it became difficult to distinguish one idea from another, and it ended up feeling longer than it was. The drastic shift from the unrelenting speed and force of “Northern Dawn” into the chuggy “Necrocatacomb” was the only jarring area where the opposite was true. While the latter song was underwhelming and generic, the former was extremely compelling, and is exactly the aim that I think would help Black Lava moving forward.

The other main thing that isolated me was the fact that the vocals hardly match the music at all. Sometimes, polar opposites are a charm. Other times, they feel awkward, like in the case of Soul Furnace. I like the idea of doing something different, but the vocals are a very tough sell. They would feel far more in place on a DevilDriver record, where the cleaner production and groovier methods would welcome this with open arms. Black Lava is a band worth keeping an eye on. Their ideas are solid and the momentum is there, but the blend is far off, and relaxing the production would certainly help. Sometimes, this is why a demo stage is helpful.

Listen -> Bandcamp

Album Review: Anthrax - Sound Of White Noise

Anthrax - Sound Of White Noise

Elektra Records - 1993

8.5/10

Heading into the decade that saw thrash go underground, Anthrax made dynamic changes with every step through the genre’s revival nearly two-decades later. Swinging off the progressive leaning direction that Persistence Of Time hinted at, new frontman John Bush would skew the band’s sound into the grunge/metal territory. Without lifting away the thrash metal bottom, Sound Of White Noise sees the longer structures of its predecessor pass through a ‘90s gradient with heavy metal roots that don’t go away. While a potential tough sell on paper, I find this to be incredibly serviceable.

Elements of all three remnants can be found everywhere one way or another. Despite John Bush being known for singing traditional heavy metal, he had an easy time blending into the time due to his snarly style and slight rasp that came through as early as March Of The Saint. It would be a stretch to say that Sound Of White Noise does much in the realm of advanced writing, but they certainly have the proper use of repetition down. As redundant as the grungier “Only” may sound, its blend of melodies mixed into slower riffs and a drawn out choruses work wonders. It’s also impossible to overlook the Alice In Chains influence on “Hy Pro Glo” not only in the dreary layers, but the depression progression and obvious vocal nods.

Most importantly, Anthrax don’t let go of any of the attitude that they displayed previously. “Packaged Rebellion” uses a solid, bass-heavy suspense intro to work towards an angrier call of bluff in the descending chorus/riff structure. This is more groove metal oriented due to the start/stop leanings, but it’s not gruff in the Pantera way. “Black Lodge” continues the cinema theme, this one being a soft and somber ode to Twin Peaks. “1000 Points Of Hate” rides on some incredible percussion with a doomier bridge between otherwise pummeling rhythms. Truly the entire record has a lot of weight in these combos, giving Dan Spitz the chance to exit the band on a bang.

Despite being a time where Anthrax’s brand would have lost popularity, they did an incredible job at not only selling new ideas, but letting them flow wonderfully together. Could a bit of fat have been trimmed from this? Probably. Coming in at nearly an hour in length, I always thought the opener “Potters Field” was a weak start, and maybe some others go on just a hair too much, but it’s hardly a big deal when so much is performed wonderfully. Many thrashers of this time were scramming to fit in; some were disastrous, others felt natural. This is an example of the latter.

Understanding Capital Vol. 1 (Part 2), by Karl Marx

Welcome to Understanding Capital Vol. 1, where the goal is to analyze all angles of Capital, extract the important points, and summarize as much information as possible. The purpose here is less about inserting opinions on the work or what's said, and more about laying everything out to someone who has never read it, or someone who has a tough time reading it, yet can get a full understanding of the information.

Getting through the first three chapters, or Part 1, seems to be the toughest part of the entire Capital experience. While that focuses on the commodity, and its exchange with the role of money, the next three chapters, or Part 2, goes into a deeper discussion on the concept of capital itself, and how it relates to the concepts covered in part 1.

Chapter 4: General Formula For Capital

Money is the way that capital is realized, as it's a product of the circulation of commodities that can generate money into more money. Thus, it does not mean that all money is capital. If we look back to the C-M-C circuit shown in Part 1, the money only plays the role of purchasing another commodity; its sole power is to fulfill some sort of human need or desire, and is not capital. Capital, on the other hand, is when the start and end of the circuit are switched, which Marx notes as M-C-M, or Money-Commodity-Money. The end goal is to get more money from the money that you already started with, instead of using money to fulfill a need or want.

In other words, C-M-C cares about use-value, whereas M-C-M cares about exchange value. Let's supposed you have an old couch you're trying to get rid of, so you sell it (C) for money (M) to purchase some new clothes that you need (C). The goal here is to attain something useful, and the money in this equation is not capital. But let's look at an example where money is capital. Lets say you inherited $250,000 from a deceased relative (M). You use that money to purchase a property (C), and then re-sell that house for $300,000 (M). The money used to make more money is what's known as capital, and despite the $50,000 profit, no actual value was added to the commodity in question, assuming no work or additions were done to the house to increase its value. This leads us to a new feature of the circuit, M-prime. M-prime is M (the money that you got back that was initially used for purchase) +MΔ (the money made on top after re-selling for more than you paid), and the entire new circuit reads as M-C-M-prime.

Utilizing this circuit is the goal of the capitalist, and that difference between M and M-prime is known as surplus value. In other words, MΔ is the surplus value. Want another example that's a bit more realistic and small-scale? Suppose you have a friend that owns a machine shop. He makes a hammer, and sells it to you for $10. You then go and sell that hammer to someone else for $15. No value was added to that hammer by you buying it, but the price still went up for you to distribute it and turn a $5 profit. This is the crucial centerpiece for capitalism.

We can now understand that there are no limits to this equation, and that value continuously changes form between money, commodity, capital, and surplus value. The M-C-M-prime circuit is value in motion meant to expand, with continual growth by the person who gained the initial capital. The faster this repeats, the better the capitalist will do. The slower it repeats, the closer they will get to a crisis.

Chapter 5: Contradictions In The General Formula For Capital

Chapter five is very to-the-point, and further breaks down what was discussed in chapter four. Specifically, the contradiction focuses on the realization of no value being added just because someone buys and sells something. This is known as exchange of non-equivalents. Someone raises the price of something 10% above its value, and may now purchase something from somebody who sells their product 10% above its value. It's another way of seeing that there is no value being added. Let's look at the hammer example again. If you sell that $10 hammer for $15, but then someone else sells you a sickle they bought for $10 at $15, you both end up exactly where you were at the beginning. No value or labor is added to either product, yet both went up $5 simply for being purchased and re-distributed. How could a capitalist sell something at its purchased value and come back with more money than they threw in? This is the general contradiction of the entire equation for capital.

Chapter 6: The Buying And Selling Of Labor Power

By now we know that labor power is what gives a commodity value in the first place, outside of its use value. We can thus conclude that the expansion of value must take place in the "C" phase of M-C-M. Whoever starts with the money must find labor power, which is a special commodity. For labor power to be bought, a laborer (or worker) must have their labor for sale. They also must only have this to sell, because if the laborer had capital, or commodities to sell, they wouldn't have any need to sell their labor power and be a worker for someone else.

Look at small businesses, for example. If you own a successful restaurant, you have no reason to go work for someone else. But lets say that you hit a crisis, and go out of business. Now you must sell your labor power to another capitalist, or a larger company will buy your company. You're either now selling your labor to that larger company, or you go work elsewhere.

Going back to the first chapter, on how labor power can be represented in commodities, this shows that a bundle of commodities produced by a worker over a certain period of time can be reflective of labor power in the larger picture. In order to stay consistent, labor power value should move to meet the social needs of a worker. If rent or food prices go up, so should wages. When that doesn't happen, poverty occurs, and prevents reproduction of labor power. In a way, this is a spot where capitalists dig their own graves.

Conclusion:

Labor power is unique in that it's a part of someone, whether it's brain power, manual labor, physical time or attention, etc. Regardless of how much value you produce, when you sell your labor to someone else, you're always taking home the same amount, and it's fronted a week (or more) without collecting interest. If you work at a store, and in one week's time you have 500 customers in your line, and another week 1,000, you're paid the same amount regardless. You won't see a paycheck until long after your work is done, and all the excess value produced by your labor is extracted by the owner.

"Freedom" under capitalism is the freedom to be forced to sell labor power in order to survive, and the freedom to attain the micro-sized chance of becoming a ruling capitalist. No natural social basis exists to put workers and owners on opposite sides, it's just what happens when ownership of means are privatized by few. The more division of labor, the more commodities will be sold by a price rather than their actual value due to constant distribution and private ownership. Multiple modes of production can exist in one nation, since there wasn't one single point in any country's history where the capitalist class came to be.

Historical Narrative: Why Turkey Is Authoritarian, by Halil Karaveli

Unlike many nations within the past century, who had drastically different political structures, Turkey is one that stayed pretty true to one side save for a short exception. This is not to say that the climate didn't undergo constant changes; quite the opposite. Turkey has had quite a handful of coups, bouncing between different capitalist modes around Islam and secularism. But note the constant there; capitalist modes. Halil Karaveli describes the nation as the point where east and west meet, with these religious and anti-religious sentiments being used to disguise the interests of one ruling class. In his book Why Turkey Is Authoritarian: From Atatürk To Erdoğan, this very statement gets looked at in deep detail, discussing events all the way back to the Ottoman rule prior to what would become the Republic Of Turkey, and the Eurasian nation's continual maintenance of the capitalist system. Despite being a member of NATO since 1952, it's a nation that gets less discussion than deserved amongst leftist circles, and the details in this book paint similar issues that I see in the United States, under different umbrellas. While this book works somewhat sequentially, I find it one that deals with more broad issues on a common front very well, and for this reason, we're going to break down its contents down chapter by chapter.

A Violent History

Rather self-explanatory, what's first talked about is the recurring theme of violence that's been used to maintain power, a feat very natural to right wing domination. As recent as 2015, one hundred left-wing peace activists were blown up in the capital of Ankara, consisting of Turks and Kurds. The cause was a military threat on Kurdish citizens in the southeast region, destroying their towns in the process. Only months earlier, thirty socialists were killed in a suicide bombing known as The Ankara Massacre. In 2013, even U.S. President Obama, despite being a liberal centrist, severed his ties with Erdoğan thanks to the crushing of Gezi (a political alliance of left-leaning parties) protests.

But it goes back far deeper than this. In 1969, leftist demonstrators were slain by fascists in Beyazıt Square, İstanbul. This would show a trend of the right wing government defending killings carried out by fascists, rather than punishing them. In 1977, on International Labor Day, forty people were assassinated. Only a year following, hundreds of Alevis (an underprivileged sect of Islam) would be the victims of a mass killing, which rooted back as far as Ottoman rule.

To understand where these patterns start, we have to look back to the final couple Ottoman years in 1914. As the book says, in this time period, the empire consisted of modern-day Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Its fall would result in the British and French squandering to gathering territories. Mustafa Kemal, later renamed Atatürk (Father Turk), would play a more important role at this point, as he had a successful record in the first World War. He would go on to lead a resistance movement, and take charge aside an insurrection against Ottoman policy, having Bolshevik Russia as an ally. It may sound like an odd combination, but Lenin and Kemal had a common enemy: The British Empire and western imperialism. Kemal was far more nationalist than he was a socialist, but this was enough for the two to work side by side. The Treaty Of Moscow was singed in 1921 between Ankara and Moscow.

Knowing this, it becomes easy to understand why early Turkish parties had odd blends of leftists and liberals. The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), or the "Young Turks" would establish itself out of that exact combination, meaning it consisted of conflicting ideologies. Unfortunately, with the nationalist identity holding too much weight, it would also play a role in the Armenian Massacre from 1915-1917, causing the death of about a million Armenians. To this day, the Turkish government rejects this as an act of genocide.

Mustapha Suphi, a party member that adopted the Bolshevik way of thinking, lead the Turkish Communist Party. But it wouldn't be long before Kemal would dispose of him and his party leadership. After being denied entry into Erzurum, the largest city in that region of Turkey, they were instead shipped to Trabzon, off the coast of the Black Sea. They were being told that they'd be sent back to Russia, but were instead killed and dumped in the Black Sea in January of 1921. This saw the beginning of the pattern, being the first mass killing in what is now considered Turkey.

Kemalist "Left"

One of the easiest ways to permeate leftist circles is to disguise right-wing ideology with leftist colors, which peaked its head in the prior section. Kemal gained full control of Anatolia, the westmost region in Asia that makes up much of Turkey's land. This is where the first step towards a secularist government began, amidst the Grand National Turkish Assembly finishing off the final sultanate. Popular or official, if it was religion, he attacked it. Dissolving religious courts and laws would unify a public secular education system, which could be seen as a progressive move. But reforms were enacted through rampant brutality, which worked in the form of a cultural revolution without an actual social revolution.

The biggest key ingredient for that was missing. Class conflict hardly existed amongst citizens, due to the Ottoman Empire not permitting a powerful landowning class to take fruition. Thus, Atatürk saw no need to suppress any popular uprisings of a working class that didn't exist. Nazi Germany and fascist Italy operated differently; they targeted left movements and people groups through brainwashing amidst economic crises, while Atatürk won a following simply by fighting off foreign enemies. Strikes didn't appear until a smaller working class was able to emerge in İstanbul. The industrialization of peasants into a working class would eventually see the actual suppression of international waves of strikes, revealing how Atatürk had bourgeoise radicalism in mind to persecute the left. Now the banned Communist Party of Turkey saw some real potential, proving to be vital when all of its leaders were killed.

From 1923 to 1950, the state would remain a one-party dictatorship without any free elections. In 1925, party general Şefik Hüsnü took charge in secret, who saw little conditioning for mass popular uprising. Unlike in China, the peasantry mostly owned their land, and the underdeveloped industry kept the working class weak. Though Kemalist Turkey still had its common enemy with Bolshevik Russia during the Sixth Congress of Communist International, the Turkish "left" still sided with Atatürk, despite earlier repressions. But it wouldn't take long for others to wise up.

By the 1930s, Hüsnü started to disprove of the state, calling it a "violent oppressive terror regime." Atatürk showed no love for Hitler or Mussolini, but their admiration of him speaks volumes. They valued his national purity-adjacent ideas, and praised his way of nationalizing society beside mass killings and deportations. The Anatolian War resulted in the cleansing of Greek-Orthodox peoples and prevented surviving Armenians to return following that massacre. But the Kemalist "left" still justified these acts in the guise of anti-imperialism, showing the faulty foundations. Prior to his death in 1938, Atatürk mended relations with the west, hosting Frederick D. Roosevelt and King Edward VIII in İstanbul. Some leftist supporters did not favor this, but Turkey ended up joining NATO as a result in 1952.

Distrust and isolation by the masses and an attempt to go against NATO was what saw the demise of the traditional leftists within the CUP. Kemalist "leftists" saw the state as the solution working beside "enlightenment" away from religious superstition, borrowing some ideas from a planned economy. But it was still in the interest of a ruling class, which eventually bred a liberal left in the 1960s. The Kemalists remained loyal to nationalist authoritarian measures as a tool for right wing control, while the liberals arose as a capitalist counterforce to the nationalist state's authoritarianism. Thus, tensions between two different right wing classes wore "leftist" colors to appeal to the masses in their own interests. Furthermore, a labor party leader named Mehmet Ali Aybar took issue with Kemalism and Marxism, claiming that the latter did not apply to Turkey. His view of class struggles was that it rose from the military-civilian bureaucracy. The Turkish right was able to hide behind the façade of conflict between the silent Muslim majority and the westernizing state elite. Class interests of the right were distorted and hidden, causing the liberal "left" to overlook authoritarian records of the right's past, to the point that they even made excuses for it.

Roots To Grow Capitalism

To understand capitalism's rise, we must first look back at the aforementioned Ottoman structure that prevented a rising landlord class. This is what Marx and Engels referred to as Asiatic modes of production, alongside China and Persia. As capitalism grew in the west, small pockets of Christian bourgeoise existed within the Empire's regions, which put Muslims at a disadvantage, seeing that so few of them were employed. So instead of a rising working class, Muslim identity emphasis took root over working class unity (which also gave way to Balkan and Slavic nationalism).

Enter Sultan Abdülhamid II in 1876, who declared a constitutional monarchy to see Christians, Jews, and Muslims as equals. The purpose to create a unity front was meant to crush the threatening revolt in the Balkans. If they could give the impression to Great Britain that their empire was a liberal monarchy, there was a far heavier chance of gaining support. Not even a decade later, the chances of a Turkish revolution arose with Mithat Pasha, a democratic reformer that got kicked out of parliament and was later executed. His larger following meant the need for repressive measures by 1895, and the first Armenian massacre was carried out in Anatolia and Constantinople.

Sultan Abdülhamid II

While a Christian bourgeoisie class was arising, Abdülhamid II sought to create an educated middle class of Islamic people to compete against the growing capitalist class. 1909 would prove this to be far too late in the making, as the Young Turks had taken formation and overthrown him. By 1913, their front called for a boycott on Greek and Armenian stores to grow their own wealth, which was heavily aided by the first World War. Indeed, the Ottoman Empire may have fallen after the Great War, but this class succeeded in emerging as the ruling class, paving the way for what would be come Turkey.

All that remained was a seizure of feudal assets to grow the capitalist class's wealth. One example was the cotton gins and fields found in Cilicia bordering Syria, which were remnants of the booming economy during the American Civil War. Atatürk himself moved into a stolen Armenian mansion in Angora (now Ankara). The Armenian genocide was seen as a justified act due to the previous Balkan War that caused millions of Muslim deaths. Another named Hacı Ömer started as a peasant, but with access to looted property quickly worked into the capitalist class. By the standards of the 1920s and 1930s in Turkey, liberal radicalism was progressive in the way it answered to the current needs. But as always, it shortly turned to bourgeoisie conservatism. Religious influence and business liberalism worked side by side by the 1940s. So to put it shortly, legal reforms from Kemalism followed capitalist foundation that got its roots from genocide.

Right Wing Tactics and Social Democracy

Of course, you couldn't maintain power like this without convincing enough people that it was the right move. How else could Hitler have played the cards he played? There's a reason he admired Atatürk, as stated earlier. For starters, no free elections took place until May of 1950, when the Republican People's Party of Atatürk were beaten by the Democratic Party founded four years earlier. This was nothing short of applying traditional values to the already existing capitalist machine. The right saw this as a victory, while the Kemalist "left" saw it as religious reaction. Liberal "leftists" saw it as revolution, Turkish "left" saw it as counterrevolution.

This was a time period of unrest between all of the capitalist ruling parties, and each saw the other as unfit for maintaining bourgeoisie power while appealing to one group or another for support. The state simply turned towards religion in the 1950s to combat socialist scares, so no regime change happened, just a different flavor of the same thing. The head of the Democratic Party was Celal Bayar, a rich landowner and banker. Wartime saw businesses thrive while peasantry suffered under heavy taxation and poverty. Urban folks wouldn't turn against this for about a decade, when the Menderes coup was carried out in 1960. This was only possible because of the right's destabilization through political turmoil and constant contradiction. But Menderes shot himself in the foot by alienating capitalists and allowing a clash between them and agrarian economics.

Only a year later, Alparslan Türkeş carried out another coup that returned things to the secularist Atatürk way of thinking. A constitution was now written to give the military rights to intervene in all politics. The entire decade was a boiling pot for class consciousness in the industrial economy. The Conservative Justice Party came to fruition in 1965, expanding religious education and furthering divide between right wing leadership that gathered heavier followings as this all went on.

As western nations saw a slight surge in social democratic leaders, such as John F. Kennedy, Turkey would also take a swing this direction, the only time they were ever even remotely left. Bülent Ecevit was the prime minister in question's name, securing a victory in striking and collective bargain rights in 1963. Any gains won by him would be removed by the right wing military junta in 1980. This collapse paved the road that allowed for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to inherit power and benefits.

Bülent Ecevit

Ecevit took a lot of issue with pretentious elites that wore a "progressive" skin, many who felt the need to "enlighten" peasants to their lifestyles. It should be evident by now that this was a rampant trend in Turkey for the prior fifty years. Instead of meddling within the ruling class, Ecevit won support through door-to-door work, and talking to workers directly to gain followers. The left wing of the Republican People's Party managed to secure power entirely by 1972, allowing for his victories.

Radicals didn't trust Ecevit entirely until he voiced a call for an antifascist rally in Taksim Square in 1976. Standing up to right wing violence was a way to unite actual leftist groups, and while he wasn't a Marxist, he went a long way to challenge capitalist power. The private sector was no longer allowed to dominate the economy, and mines were nationalized while foreign capital became regulated.

Right Revenge and Islamist Rise

It's unfortunate that leftist victories only played a small role in Turkey's history. With so many right wing groups within the borders, it was only a matter of time before ruling class opposition stepped in. Islamic Nationalists and the Nationalist Front formed, and began attacking his supporters and their homes, even taking to measures of hurling rocks at him on the campaign bus. The fascist group known as the Grey Wolves emerged, and worked its way into the state machinery by establishing close contacts within the military. Alparslan Türkeş was the leader of this group, who was responsible for the death of thousands of leftists between 1975 and 1980.

It also doesn't help that the nation's geopolitical position would cause any left movements to snag the attention of the United States. Carter's general secretary Warren Christopher met with Ecevit in 1979, which alerted Washington that he had to go. They arranged for the Turkish military to overthrow him in order to restore their interests and cancel democracy. This was kicked into action in 1980 when Kenan Evren assumed power via coup, granted by Washington. Through this neoliberal revolution, the public sector was slashed, and a reformation package was issued by the IMF and the World Bank. It also saw the return of religious influence pairing with a liberal government, a seemingly endless trend.

Ranks of Islamists in government through this period was how Recep Tayyip Erdoğan managed to work his way up. He took over as prime minister within the movement under Necmettin Erbaken following yet another coup. Universities bred grounds for right wing student associations, ensuring these ideals stuck with younger generations. The bourgeoisie class began to unite under globalization and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Religious government practices to combat socialism appealed heavily to the west in the past, but the anti-communist threat that held Turkey's ties close went away. Relations were breaking, and were only made worse when Turkey didn't allow the United States to invade Iraq through them in 2003. The U.S. wouldn't forgive this, just as they wouldn't forgive Ecevit not allowing them to spy on the Soviets. The prior coups in the past always answered to the bourgeoisie, but when these conditions called for another one against Erdoğan, there was no U.S. endorsement. This was the second condition that always helped maintain right wing power, and since Erdoğan's interest didn't challenge the U.S. bourgeoisie's, a 2016 attempted coup against him failed.

My Conclusions

Karaveli closes things off with an overall point that refers back to an earlier trend in Turkish history. He notes that cultural identity (Turks vs. Kurds, or Islam vs. secular) always took priority over class identity, which prevented leftists from challenging the authoritarian right wing. This alone is what I find most important, and backs that Why Turkey Is Authoritarian is a very important read for leftists in the west. American leftism has faced a similar issue all throughout history, almost like a playbook. The capitalist class does what it can to divide the working class by presenting different interests to buy into, turning the workers against each other. This is done with racism, sexism, and similarly, religious appealing. Turkey has a very different history from the United States, which caused differences in their class struggles, but the tactics are the same. Much like the Democratic and Republican parties of the United States, Islamic, Liberal, and Secularist parties operated to divide the population into serving their needs. The Kemalist "left" only got that tag because of its origins in fighting off western imperialism, and keeping the Kemalists under a right wing umbrella through their rise proved to be very easy.

One key difference is the fact that the U.S. and stronger western powers played a role in keeping the right in power in Turkey. As soon as the slightest hint of a leftist threat emerged, Washington did everything it could to rid the land of that influence. Weaponizing violent right wingers and military connections made this entirely too easy. Turkey's geopolitical position also played a heavy role in the U.S. influence. Being the NATO country right on the Soviet border, it became imperative that the United States kept their ruling class interests in line with the west.

As the book outlines, the Ottoman history also made Turkey differ from western powers in its prevention of large capitalist owning classes and landlords for so long. Karaveli mentions the fascination Marx and Engels had of these regions, and the Asiatic modes of production. It's an important note that gets overlooked, showing the problems that can arise within leftist circles in nations encompassed by an empire. The history of violence existed within the Ottoman borders, and they carried over to the first capitalist uprising, which set the stage for everything.

Opportunism played a large role in Turkish authoritarianism as well. Lenin outlines the dangers of this in some of his works, and it shows how this can be fatal through Turkey's history. As I stated already, Kemalists aligned themselves as leftists by fighting imperial powers. As soon as they gained the upper hand, they disposed of all communist leaders and severed the already weak left before they even had a chance to rise. This pattern of violence remained the main weapon to stopping leftist movements, and still continues today.

While Turkey may have little to do with Socialism on paper, it's a really good country to study the history from and dissect exactly why they've remained right wing, and how the authoritarian measures were used to yield to the capitalist class. Even when it had a chance at the left, it was met with aggression from the nationalist groups inside the country, and imperialist ones outside.