|
consumed by normies posted:its funny, basically everyone was incredibly dismissive of people going to syria to fight with the YPG or w/e as war adventurism, and i was never able to figure out why it was actually bad or how it was any different from volunteers fighting in Spain, until PPG got twitter cool and now its suddenly good 
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
I do think it's pretty similar to volunteers going to Spain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
consumed by normies posted:its funny, basically everyone was incredibly dismissive of people going to syria to fight with the YPG or w/e as war adventurism, and i was never able to figure out why it was actually bad or how it was any different from volunteers fighting in Spain, until PPG got twitter cool and now its suddenly good i have always supported the struggle of YPG-PPG
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
pee pee doo doo
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:it's escapism to leave a cushy western life for a war where you may die? What was the final quote from Office Space? Something about being better able to compromise a system from the inside. All I know is I can't track down the particular line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
wrong thred again
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
foreign nationals fighting in the ypg are definitely being used as propagandists more than anything else but that doesn't mean ppg or those guys from that inadvertently hilarious village voice piece aren't seeing actual fighting it can be two things
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RIPMarkusJ/status/824503102036475908
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
magnets, how do they work? let me tell you of the infallible scientific truths of marxism-leninism...
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:On that tack, could anyone explain to me why political parties had organized paramilitary wings in Weimar Germany. (And other parts of Europe) The idea that was the norm blows my mind It's gonna be the norm here in like a year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Surely no one has noticed that before or even gave a name to this process
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
It took Liberals a couple centuries to independently realize Marx was right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
it keeps happening and it's funny every single time
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
 has anyone looked into this?>!?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
something is going on!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
That is weird, if only someone would write a book about capital, maybe with a special focus on its relation to economic crises.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
A book about Capital, you say? Seems interesting, but I'll wait for the peer reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:It's gonna be the norm here in like a year. Don't worry PPG is on our side! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Peel posted:That is weird, if only someone would write a book about capital, maybe with a special focus on its relation to economic crises. thomas picketty's book got translated into english a while ago dude
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Just started listening to the thing, but goddamn is the labour theory of value more retarded than I rememberd. Hope it's not gonna be on the test.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Just started listening to the thing, but goddamn is the labour theory of value more retarded than I rememberd. Hope it's not gonna be on the test. What's your most serious criticism of it? How do you think things really work?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Just started listening to the thing, but goddamn is the labour theory of value more retarded than I rememberd. Hope it's not gonna be on the test. it's literally work done - wage paid for work = profit that goes to somebody who didn't do any work
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Fiction posted:it's literally You've missed the important part of how it calculates work done. Just like that then the materials used are really exploited because they don't get paid at all!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
namesake posted:You've missed the important part of how it calculates work done. Just like that then the materials used are really exploited because they don't get paid at all! materials arent people so exploiting them is okay imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
namesake posted:You've missed the important part of how it calculates work done. Just like that then the materials used are really exploited because they don't get paid at all! the workers turns the materials into the product, the value of the work is equal to the revenue from selling the product minus the cost of the materials
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
namesake posted:What's your most serious criticism of it? How do you think things really work? Value does not exist independent of human perception and is indeed subject to it. Value cannot be assigned to an object as a property of the object. It doesn't matter how much work is put into an object, what it was bought for, or whatever materials were used in its production. The value of an object is simply what another is willing to pay for it, full stop. Fiction posted:it's literally Objects can be produced without wages and sold without making a profit, so clearly it's not literally about the wages or the profit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
labour has no special metaphysical status, but is a universal input and one performed by human beings with ethical status rather than inanimate objects, so when choosing a commodity to orient your mathematics around, it's a natural one
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:
The only companies that don't make a profit are the ones that work because of venture capitalist fairy dust which only exists because of other workers also being exploited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
^^Think you might need some anime for a post like that, Peel.Friendly Humour posted:Value does not exist independent of human perception and is indeed subject to it. Value cannot be assigned to an object as a property of the object. It doesn't matter how much work is put into an object, what it was bought for, or whatever materials were used in its production. The value of an object is simply what another is willing to pay for it, full stop. Keep listening, at no point is value said to be a physical property of the object. It's a reflection of input costs needed for production to continue, mixed with a markets valuation of the finished item, compared with all the other things that could be bought. It's a completely human-orientated calculation. Hell in the little discussion we had about the USSR being state capitalism one of the major points against it being capitalist was the lack of labour markets meaning that the LTV wasn't in effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Value does not exist independent of human perception and is indeed subject to it. Value cannot be assigned to an object as a property of the object. It doesn't matter how much work is put into an object, what it was bought for, or whatever materials were used in its production. The value of an object is simply what another is willing to pay for it, full stop. different definition of "value"; not subjective value, but value to the perspective of capital. also important: "theory of value" != "theory of price." price and value are two very different, but related (though not in the way people assume), concepts bear those things in mind and it will make a lot more sense
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
namesake posted:^^Think you might need some anime for a post like that, Peel. Neither did I say that I thought labour value was a physical property of the object. It's still assigned as a property of the object itself, not as a property of the person viewing the object. A person trying to determine how much he wants to pay for the object in question doesn't factor in any of the things that I've so far heard of. What relationship connects price to labour value then? Because if it's nothing really, then what is the use of the theory anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:What relationship connects price to labour value then? Because if it's nothing really, then what is the use of the theory anyway? total value = total price, one of Marx's three aggregate identities. an individual commodity's price generally differs from its value according to capital intensity. so things with more than the average proportion of capital to labor will tend to have prices above values, and vice versa. but in sum, these differences net out. (there's more to it than just that, but i'm leaving out the rate of profit stuff to simplify) so value acts as a systemic constraint on price, or, put another way: value determines price in the last instance, rather than in the direct fashion many assume the ultimate point of value theory is not to predict individual prices (again, that's a different theory altogether), but to explain the more general laws of motion under capitalism edit: 
Aeolius fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:What relationship connects price to labour value then? Because if it's nothing really, then what is the use of the theory anyway? the price of a commodity is limited by the price of labour. if company a uses inefficient methods and spends twice as much on labour costs per commodity as company b, they will eventually go bankrupt because their prices will be too high and company b will dominate the market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Neither did I say that I thought labour value was a physical property of the object. It's still assigned as a property of the object itself, not as a property of the person viewing the object. No but value in an LTV doesn't rely on an individual, it relies on the market and production, groups of people interacting. In this society of differing production methods and different desires there becomes a value for the commodity as there becomes an averagely efficient level of labour needed to make it. You can say it's in the object or in the society but it's the same thing. quote:A person trying to determine how much he wants to pay for the object in question doesn't factor in any of the things that I've so far heard of. You seem to be a marginalist: you think people use their budgets in a utility maximising way and shop accordingly. Why does a seller care for the money of the buyer, and how much do they know how to charge?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
namesake posted:No but value in an LTV doesn't rely on an individual, it relies on the market and production, groups of people interacting. In this society of differing production methods and different desires there becomes a value for the commodity as there becomes an averagely efficient level of labour needed to make it. You can say it's in the object or in the society but it's the same thing. Nigga pls, marginalism is so idiotic I don't even know where to begin with. It treats people as logical computers and it's really really stupid and its application by neoliberal asswipes has never ever had anything but utterly destructive results. My only point about evaluation being inseparable from human perception is that nothing trumps it. An object can definately be extremely costly to produce in terms of labour time and investments and large amount of exploitation, but if nobody wants to buy at the price asked, that value is completely meaningless. I'm just saying that the price of an object and profitability seems completely disconnected from its labour value. I'm saying that objects aren't valuable as themselves, only as objects of desire. Anyway, LTV certainly has some value as a theory to explain capitalistic dynamics, but if it can't connect "value" to "price", it doesn't actually describe anything except the system it is used to criticise. It's not a universal theory, it cannot predict the future, and it stops working when the conditions it used to describe change. Ie, it doesn't seem able to explain automization/robotics or technological progress in general. Or you know, natural resources. I'm sure you can adapt it to describe changing economic dynamics, but without predictive power it cannot be claimed to be a scientific theory. Also, I can't respond to everyone oh christ pls dont gulag me (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
EDIT: wait a second, Baloogan isn't in charge anymore! 
Victory Position fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:It's not a universal theory, it cannot predict the future, and it stops working when the conditions it used to describe change. depends on what you mean by "predict." it does make predictions that hold very well, re: the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, for recurrent crises, centralization and concentration of capital, etc. But it can't tell you the exact day a crisis will happen because prediction that fine is impossible in the social sciences. e.g., if there were a 100% trustworthy prediction about a crisis, people would adjust their behavior and change the very parameters on which it was based, nullifying it. but you're right that it's not universal. the law of value is particular to commodity exchange, and if the commodity form disappears, the law of value would cease to apply. this isn't a bug but a feature; all theories need boundaries. a theory that claims to explain everything generally explains nothing. Friendly Humour posted:Ie, it doesn't seem able to explain automization/robotics or technological progress in general. this is actually one of the things it explains most well. you'll get up to it. Friendly Humour posted:without predictive power it cannot be claimed to be a scientific theory. that's a very positivist attitude. on the other hand, Marx's value theory is very self-consciously realist, prioritizing explanation over prediction (especially in light of the above problem w/prediction). difference of philosophy of science, but an important one!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
well ok i guess you're right about all of that. Still, I find assigning value to objects themselves based on methods of production as fundamentally PROBLEMATIC
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Weeping Wound posted:EDIT: wait a second, Baloogan isn't in charge anymore! i like to think that the niggagate played a part in that (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:15
|
|