|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The mistake you're making here is assuming that military work has social utility. Pener Kropoopkin posted:What I mean is that socially useful work recreates productive labor - like the homemaker who washes your clothes and maintains the home, or your drug dealer. It really sucks and I hate it but it has very obvious utility for the dominating class of our society. It's not clear how you are selecting for what labor is considered useful without begging the question of useful labor being done implying expansion of capital. If you are speaking in a kind of collective egoist utility, even then there can be capital reduction in something like the labor of destroying piracy prevention so that the wider public can use the product. The value of the capital being destroyed being the value remaining in the piracy prevention system.
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
richard wolff makes the distinction using the words productive workers (those producing commodities) and non-productive workers (those not producing commodities) under capitalism non-productive workers would be supervisors, managers, clerks, salesmen, policemen, professors, lawyers, etc. however in this distinction, I think salesmen and clerks and even police have a lot more in common with the commodity producer than the supervisor and manager workers
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:You're really confusing the issue here, because programmers, musicians, and tool-designers all produce commodities - it's just that they're producing intellectual properties and not physical commodities. The middle class is the class that performs the necessary intellectual and social labor which recreates the business cycle, but while middle class labor can certainly have its price determined it's impossible to determine the value of that labor in the same way you can measure the value of commodity production. It leads you into the ridiculous assumption I was hinting at before that managers are being exploited, because nobody would hire them if they didn't get more out of their labor than they were being compensated with. The is a very amateurish misreading of Marx. He drew no distinction between labor that produces commodities directly and labor that just supports commodity production, and was unequivocal about this in Theories of Surplus Value. You're also leaving out the aspect of the realization of value. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 20:50 on May 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:he's george ciccariello-maher lol
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
"Adam Smith naturally includes in the labour which fixes or realises itself in a vendible and exchangeable commodity all intellectual labours which are directly consumed in material production. Not only the labourer working directly with his hands or a machine, but overlooker, engineer, manager, clerk, etc.—in a word, the labour of the whole personnel required in a particular sphere of material production to produce a particular commodity, whose joint labour (co-operation) is required for commodity production. In fact they add their aggregate labour to the constant capital, and increase the value of the product by this amount."
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:You're really confusing the issue here, because programmers, musicians, and tool-designers all produce commodities - it's just that they're producing intellectual properties and not physical commodities. The middle class is the class that performs the necessary intellectual and social labor which recreates the business cycle, but while middle class labor can certainly have its price determined it's impossible to determine the value of that labor in the same way you can measure the value of commodity production. It leads you into the ridiculous assumption I was hinting at before that managers are being exploited, because nobody would hire them if they didn't get more out of their labor than they were being compensated with. Edit: Actually, this doesn't necessarily hold true because adding managers is a way of increasing the firm's average rate of exploitation, which allows for the managers to be not exploited themselves and still increase aggregate profit. There can still be some cases where managers don't significantly increase the average rate of exploitation yet still increase aggregate profit and if you look at just those they might be exploited in the aggregate. But across all managers, yeah probably not exploited in the aggregate, technically. Yes, the more exploited you are generally the more lovely your life is for the value you provide, but (especially nowadays) you can have quite a pleasant life and still be mathematically exploited. All that implies is that you produce some amount more than is necessary to replace yourself for the next production cycle. A major appeal of the socialist mode of production is to cease mindless expansion of productivity, which is vaguely like having labor be only slightly exploited in the aggregate (ideally just enough to produce surplus product to replace any losses in unforseen disasters, plus some to improve productivity where we can reach agreements on being necessary). Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 20:53 on May 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The is a very amateurish misreading of Marx. He drew no distinction between labor that produces commodities directly and labor that just supports commodity production, and was unequivocal about this in Theories of Surplus Value. You're also leaving out the aspect of the realization of value. It's not a reading of Marx, and I outlined the necessity of middle class labor in the realization of value. Marxist class dimensions are an effective shorthand in understanding the function of capitalism, but it's not accurate in defining the dimensions of actually existing class society. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that there are class distinctions between yourself and the middle class, then you're left asking the question of "why are these fellow proles bashing my head in on behalf of the boss?" False consciousness doesn't quite cut it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin is beginning to make me understand why the Bolsheviks had to purge all of the anarchists after the revolution.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Clochette posted:Pener Kropoopkin is beginning to make me understand why the Bolsheviks had to purge all of the anarchists after the revolution. lol
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Clochette posted:Pener Kropoopkin is beginning to make me understand why the Bolsheviks had to purge all of the anarchists after the revolution. Maybe someday you can make me understand how someone could eat floor pizza.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
i see we have reached the "no u" stage of the dialect
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Maybe someday you can make me understand how someone could eat floor pizza. It was still in a sealed box 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
That thread brought me more joy than I'd had in a month anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:404 too much prolix found
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/decorcione/status/994676527068479490 teen maoists in charge
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
the real trick is not to bother with the ltv at all rather than juggling epicycles sakai has problems but most people who hate him are arguing with a stereotype of an annoying racial theorist they have in their head rather than engaging with anything he's actually said
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:labor aristocracies aren't in "cahoots" with capital, they're intentionally cultivated to prevent class consciousness and international solidarity. J. Sakai isn't implying that the white middle class doesn't perform useful labor, he's implying that they are overpaid for that labor well above what any rational society would consider its value compared to the production of commodities. That's what the welfare takes the form of: a social compact between capitalists (the ruling class) and the middle class (their attendants), that guarantees their material and social security. Earnings for social labor are purely socially determined, because there's no material cost input to determine the real value of that labor. What that class is not equivalent to, is whiteness, because believe it or not, the vast majority of white people are not middle managers, directly involved in intensifying the exploitation of labor. To pretend that that is the way things are, is extremely stupid. Those in the managerial class gain their position because they are already usually well off (and therefore already conditioned into the ruling ideology of capitalism), able to coordinate labor and increase exploitation, and can be trusted to be loyal to capitalist ideology, and to the capitalist in particular. This isn't equivalent to whiteness (because most white people are laborers), and not limited to whiteness either (in fact it's a class that is in the process of diversifying in the US, to say nothing of this class that already exists outside America, in China and so on, which would collectively already vastly outnumber the population of the US). Intellectual labor is not equivalent to managerial labor, because it's a necessary part of realizing the value of highly-capital intensive production (high-tech). It's relatively higher wage level is determined by its scarcity, something that capitalists are always fighting against (through H1B's and such), because were that labor not scarce and hard to replace, the wage levels would be lower. It's that scarcity that determines the wage level, it's not the result of a 'compact'. That's conspiratorial thinking, not systemic thinking. You may as well start saying it's all the result of the jews, for the all the intellectual rigor your theory has. Were you theory of a 'compact' true, globalization wouldn't have taken place at all. Pener Kropoopkin posted:Anyway, for somebody who claims to reject identity politics rudatron has a weird habit of adopting the reactionary chud framing of it. I also can't help notice that you immediately dropped the identity side of this argument, after my most recent couple of posts on the issue. Should I interpret this as a concession on your part, that I'm right, and you're wrong? Again? If so, you should refrain for stupid pot shots like this, that says nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
please stop fighting theres no need to get mean with eachother here
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
were all just friends having fun discussions about what we love: politics
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
lol I love when my coworkers say stuff like “hey [GA], what do you think of the latest Comey interview?” since they are under the impression that I “like politics”
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
who’s comey
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
i always get him mixed up with mueller and don’t really plan to determine the difference between them
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:who’s comey 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
Pener, you're attributing too much intentionality to reaction, as the result of explicit agreement. That's not even the case, and cannot be the case, because the most virulent reactionaries do not conceptualize their politics in these terms, of that of a 'Compact'. The reason for reaction, and for a lack of international solidarity, is simple - there is no basis upon which international solidarity could build. Nationalism and tribal politics, are the ideologies that dominate the headspace of almost everyone on this planet (including third world labor, let's get real here). One's personal position in world politics is conceptualized in these terms. In addition, there is absolutely no foundation for relationships of trust, between labor of different nationalities, either within or between different nation-states. Therefore, everyone is in it for themselves. This is a situation that capitalists are happy to exploit, but capital has not attachment to the way things are now. Nor does it create identities from whole cloth, even if it's willing to exploit and intensify identity politics if it suits its purposes i.e. enabling the brutal exploitation of black people in the US during slavery. rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:48 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
cum
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
( . __ . ) . o O (cum)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
it's kind of understandable since i have seen a couple of extreme indigenous activist types get really squirmy and self-righteously evasive when asked what their rhetoric about land means in practice, but i didn't find sakai much like them and enough of his actual words have been posted itt that i think people should put up some actual textual evidence if they're going to claim he's a cryptogenocidaire or whatever
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
Peel posted:it's kind of understandable since i have seen a couple of extreme indigenous activist types get really squirmy and self-righteously evasive when asked what their rhetoric about land means in practice, but i didn't find sakai much like them and enough of his actual words have been posted itt that i think people should put up some actual textual evidence if they're going to claim he's a cryptogenocidaire or whatever that won't happen. not even the "professional" reviews of sakai have done actual citations, i wouldn't expect any different from forum posters
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
rudatron and pener are the worst american chopper meme iteration yet
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
lol just lol that i got probationed for saying this poo poo is too prolix this poo poo is WAAAAAAAY too prolix (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Krasner and Prolix
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
prolix is one of those words dumbasses learn and then say constantly because they think it sounds smrt
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
i mean ill be honest i had to google what prolix meant like a year ago so it definitely makes you smarter than me
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Krasner and Prolix The Feuding Twins, the Astrological Sign of Meltdown May
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
i thought that prolix meant proletarian of all stripes like latinx then i looked it up and now i know a new word
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:prolix is one of those words dumbasses learn and then say constantly because they think it sounds smrt praxis, on the other hand
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:rudatron and pener are the worst american chopper meme iteration yet Sheng-Ji Yang posted:i mean ill be honest i had to google what prolix meant like a year ago so it definitely makes you smarter than me I mean, it's Baloogan's favorite word so unless you think he's a hyper brain genious
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:50
|
|
