(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
Centrist Committee posted:yes pirate every book You can also convert epub files to mobi with calibre if you want a kindle friendly format
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
Most marxist or marxist adjacent work is also on the marxist internet archive. https://www.marxists.org/
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
tokin opposition posted:Marx hipsters go home wow anarchism is finally good
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:wtf are Marxist-Humanists Marxist that don't like it when people are mean and think socialists should try being nice Essentially demsocs with pretensions of marxism. The kind of person who argues that the Soviet Union "wasn't real socialism" A lot of DSA types fit in this group. At least, ones that have enough self awareness to not identify as libertarian socialists.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
An argument for socialism from marginal theory of value and negative externalities Marginal theory of value: holds that the value of goods and services can only be determined by seeing what price they sell for on a market, as opposed to a labour theory of value which holds that goods and services have intrinsic value based on the socially necessary labour time to produce them. Negative externalities: a market failure whereby some of the cost of production or consumption is not borne by the market actors, but by some other part of society not involved in the market transaction. For example: pollution from burning fossil fuels, sound pollution causing discomfort, smoking causing secondary lung cancer, diseases becoming resistant to drugs after overuse in factory farms. The damages incurred by a negative externality are often judged based on market costs to fix the problem, but what about when the damage exists purely subjectively? For example, psychological damage. If a majority of members of society decided that the mere act of being "too wealthy" was psychologically damaging, and the value they placed on their psychological health was greater than the collective wealth of the world's billionaires, then there would be a case for compensating society with the wealth of the world's billionaires, and for taxing billionaires out of existence, in order to prevent further damage.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
semi related but how to libertarians/ancaps square negative externalities with the NAP? seems impossible from a logic standpoint
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
indigi posted:semi related but how to libertarians/ancaps square negative externalities with the NAP? seems impossible from a logic standpoint they usually say that private courts will decide on whether damages occur and what costs should be paid of course if one party insist on using a particular private court (owned by a friend from college) while the other party is choking to death from ongoing pollution, there might be a slight imbalance in power, but at least no one was coerced into paying taxes to have a government set up its own judicial system
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
it's a problem with libertarianism they've known about for decades https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuYt6X2g0cY
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:they usually say that private courts will decide on whether damages occur and what costs should be paid I refuse to create joinder with this court. bringing a case to court is itself a violation of the NAP
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
i assume most libertarians really think that anyone weak enough to be subject to those externalities deserves it. If you can only afford to buy water downstream from the private sewer outlet, then you deserve to get dysentery. Should have worked harder!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Marginal theory of value: holds that the value of goods and services can only be determined by seeing what price they sell for on a market, as opposed to a labour theory of value which holds that goods and services have intrinsic value based on the socially necessary labour time to produce them. actually that is a misstatement/oversimplification of the labor theory of value. the idea that goods and services have an INTRINSIC value is commodity fetishism. in reality value is socially determined and validated, only truly making itself felt in the moment of exchange (before which it can only be guessed at by producers). this is why marx occasionally referred to value as "spectral" or other such words the decisive example here appears early in capital when marx reminds us that if, across all society, weavers produced far more linen than people wanted to buy, the glut of linen would result in all linen having a proportionately lower value across the board despite each individual bolt having been woven put of C units of materials and over V socially-average hours. it is as if all weavers actually did extra, socially unnecessary labor which will not be validated by the market
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:actually that is a misstatement/oversimplification of the labor theory of value. the idea that goods and services have an INTRINSIC value is commodity fetishism. in reality value is socially determined and validated, only truly making itself felt in the moment of exchange (before which it can only be guessed at by producers). this is why marx occasionally referred to value as "spectral" or other such words i was under the impression that the labour theory of value only applies to commodities which are sold. things produced which are not sold (eg mud pies) are not commodities and have no value
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJFWKCUcEZs
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
don't sign yr posts
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
the real r word is revisionism
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 03:14
|
|
|
In this post I will analyze how the Death Note could have been used to obtain a communist utopia,
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 03:38
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:the real r word is revisionism
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:the real r word is revisionism tRotskyism
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 03:57
|
|
|
art comin in 30 pages late with a "hard R" joke
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:the real r word is revisionism
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:the real r word is revisionism
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
turd in my singlet posted:art comin in 30 pages late with a "hard R" joke
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:the real r word is revisionism
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
turd in my singlet posted:art comin in 30 pages late with a "hard R" joke *In viper the rapper voice*Are u really this stupid
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:i was under the impression that the labour theory of value only applies to commodities which are sold. things produced which are not sold (eg mud pies) are not commodities and have no value a commodity is something made to be sold, whose use-value its creator foreswears in order to instead attempt to realize its exchange-value. it has to have a use-value of some kind, which is what disqualified a mud pie, but the actual (exchange-) value of that commodity is up to all of society to determine. for instance, if you slave away for months making an object which, unbeknownst to you, is now easily stamped out in an hour thanks to a new invention, you'll be in for a nasty shock. value is not extrinsic but socially determined, and moreover potentially re-determined until such time as the sale takes place. so i guess what i'm saying is that classical conceptions of supply and demand are tracing the contours of something real, but that something is a constant collective process of social evaluation and validation i guess this has little to do with a framing of class envy as a negative externality, it just stuck out to me since i was reading about it recently
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 05:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:a commodity is something made to be sold, but then someone could make a mud pie and claim they made it to be sold, and you'd have to delve into their mind to figure out that they are lying and the mud pie has no value quote:it has to have a use-value of some kind, which is what disqualified a mud pie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_cookie
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 05:19
|
|
|
that's exactly why value and therefore commodity-hood can't depend on factors intrinsic to the object alone (how long it, specifically, took to make, what its maker was thinking as they made it, etc) but appear only when the object is brought to market and subject to the evaluation of the rest of society. a mud pie might well be a commodity in a society of sapient dung beetles. but it's not one in most human societies. i guess unless you're selling pranking supplies or something robinson crusoe can't produce commodities even if he desperately wants to. there is no way to ever realize the exchange value of anything he makes Ferrinus has issued a correction as of 05:38 on May 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 05:36
|
|
|
The Big R
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:that's exactly why value and therefore commodity-hood can't depend on factors intrinsic to the object alone (how long it, specifically, took to make, what its maker was thinking as they made it, etc) but appear only when the object is brought to market and subject to the evaluation of the rest of society. and if the rest of society doesn't buy that object, then it wasn't a commodity it doesn't matter if that object looks identical to the 99 other objects that turned out of the same factory and were sold (and were therefore commodities).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:and if the rest of society doesn't buy that object, then it wasn't a commodity i guess you can define a commodity that way, but that's not how marx defines it. for marx, a commodity is something whose use-value A) exists but B) is alienated from its maker. some eggs you didn't eat and instead brought to market were commodities even though you dropped them. values, exchange values, and ultimately prices really do get generated by market forces for every egg, even if not every egg gets sold
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i guess you can define a commodity that way, but that's not how marx defines it. for marx, a commodity is something whose use-value A) exists but B) is alienated from its maker. some eggs you didn't eat and instead brought to market were commodities even though you dropped them. values, exchange values, and ultimately prices really do get generated by market forces for every egg, even if not every egg gets sold oh okay
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 05:53
|
|
|
ArfJason posted:The Big R they have those, they're like Farm and Fleet, but they recently changed their name over to Stock and Field 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i guess you can define a commodity that way, but that's not how marx defines it. for marx, a commodity is something whose use-value A) exists but B) is alienated from its maker. some eggs you didn't eat and instead brought to market were commodities even though you dropped them. values, exchange values, and ultimately prices really do get generated by market forces for every egg, even if not every egg gets sold how is this different from supply and demand? edit: I haven’t read Marx directly, is there a “best” starting point/order or do I just jump right in to capital? Lyon has issued a correction as of 06:28 on May 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 06:25
|
|
|
biggest difference is that supply and demand assumes some objective principle that fixes the price of commodities
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 06:28
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:the real r word is revisionism
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
Lyon posted:how is this different from supply and demand? supply and demand are real and have measurable effects, but they cause the price of a particular commodity to oscillate up and down around some "natural" price. marx is interested in figuring out where that price comes from in the first place. his ultimate conclusion is that it is downstream from a commodity's "value", and that value is the average socially-necessary labor required to produce the commodity i think it is possible to connect supply and demand to value more directly, in that part of what causes the absolute supply of a commodity to be low is that it is very costly or time-consuming to create, but it's specifically the labor that goes into creation that marx thinks is decisive as opposed to other stuff like temporary shortages or cartels or w/e. anyway i might suggest reading marx's "wage labor and capital" https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/wage-labour-capital.pdf before diving into capital volume 1, and then, heck, just trying capital volume 1. if capital's difficult you can ask this thread or other people about it, or maybe try one of the companions/explainers for capital like michael heinrich's or david harvey's or w/e
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 06:40
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:supply and demand are real and have measurable effects, but they cause the price of a particular commodity to oscillate up and down around some "natural" price. marx is interested in figuring out where that price comes from in the first place. his ultimate conclusion is that it is downstream from a commodity's "value", and that value is the average socially-necessary labor required to produce the commodity wouldn't the "natural price" be based on the cost of the inputs (capital and labor) + the necessary (expected) profit for someone to produce the commodity? obviously there needs to be a matching societal demand that the manufacturer is predicting which will enable them to sell their commodity. after some googling perhaps most of my schooling was generally under the guise of marginalism which is going to color most of my understanding.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 06:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
my dick is a commodity and ur mom is the marketplace, and boy oh boy does she have a fetish
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 06:55
|
|
