[Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

(Thread IKs: dead gay comedy forums)

namesake: Jun 19, 2006; "When I was a girl, around 12 or 13, I had a fantasy that I'd grow up to marry Captain Scarlet, but he'd be busy fighting the Mysterons so I'd cuckold him with the sexiest people I could think of - Nigel Mansell, Pat Sharp and Mr. Blobby."

Moon Shrimp posted:

Ok I see now, you guys are talking about there being fewer opportunities to reinvest profits.

It's a little more complicated than just that though. If they had a free hand then without opportunities to make even more money they would just spend the excess on building more ridiculous houses and paedo billionaire islands. The source of crisis is that structurally they can't do that - the nature of capitalist economy means they have to try and use this mass of cash and find more and more ways to get more value for it. It's the massive deployment of spending on capital which makes that harder and harder and so builds to crisis.

# ? Jun 11, 2021 00:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 12:50

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013

namesake posted:

It's a little more complicated than just that though. If they had a free hand then without opportunities to make even more money they would just spend the excess on building more ridiculous houses and paedo billionaire islands. The source of crisis is that structurally they can't do that - the nature of capitalist economy means they have to try and use this mass of cash and find more and more ways to get more value for it. It's the massive deployment of spending on capital which makes that harder and harder and so builds to crisis.

The main reason neoliberalism is so popular today is due to the fact that cutting taxes & government expenditures is one of the main ways to return profitability to capital markets. Most of those gains have been coming out of the commons and even the boosts from tax cuts have been drying up in the last few years. Before covid.

# ? Jun 11, 2021 01:29

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

oh my god the anti-tankie subreddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/tankiejerk

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Jun 11, 2021 08:16

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

the anti-tankie thread on sa is obliged to answer me if they are a stanford experimenter it's in the rules you have to say yes if you are

# ? Jun 11, 2021 09:11

lollontee: Nov 4, 2014; Can't post for 10 years!

we are not presently disposed towards discussing such operations, even if such operations were indeed to exist

# ? Jun 11, 2021 10:28

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

comedyblissoption posted:

the anti-tankie thread on sa is obliged to answer me if they are a stanford experimenter it's in the rules you have to say yes if you are

really getting the impression that this thread's culture and/or posting standards might be better suited to professor milgram's experiment

# ? Jun 11, 2021 13:59

LittleBlackCloud: Mar 5, 2007; xXI love Plum JuiceXx

https://www.instagram.com/p/CP138qiD-2H/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
come to our rally tomorrow at 7 pm eastern to learn about the projects I lead within @blackhammerorg2.0 international SciTech committee, including inventing free water filters 💧 for colonized people being killed by poisoned water and constructing underground greenhouses 🌱 to feed our people in Hammer City. dm me for zoom link!

# ? Jun 11, 2021 16:12

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; ^{how can we not talk about family

when family's all that we got?}

underground greenhouses

# ? Jun 11, 2021 16:15

John Charity Spring: Nov 4, 2009; SCREEEEE

taliban mountain base cutaway diagram but with black hammer

# ? Jun 11, 2021 16:34

AnimeIsTrash: Jun 30, 2018

kkkolonizer

# ? Jun 11, 2021 16:35

dead gay comedy forums: Oct 21, 2011

namesake posted:

It's a little more complicated than just that though. If they had a free hand then without opportunities to make even more money they would just spend the excess on building more ridiculous houses and paedo billionaire islands. The source of crisis is that structurally they can't do that - the nature of capitalist economy means they have to try and use this mass of cash and find more and more ways to get more value for it. It's the massive deployment of spending on capital which makes that harder and harder and so builds to crisis.

imho, the best way atm to demonstrate that is the incredible amount of money that major companies dedicate to stock buybacks, in order to maintain stock prices or to increase value according to expectations

should that not happen, the stocks will not appreciate in value, which to other investors would mean "uh oh they are becoming less profitable", even if the company is perfectly fine in cash reserves and revenue, leading to disbursement of that company

# ? Jun 11, 2021 17:31

Mr. Lobe: Feb 23, 2007; ... Dry bones...

indigi posted:

underground greenhouses

That sounds like one of those things that you'd see on a conspiracy theory meme with the iceberg and different levels of derangement

It'd be one of the deeper tiers for sure

# ? Jun 11, 2021 17:37

Hodgepodge: Jan 29, 2006; Can't post for 217 days!

Mr. Lobe posted:

That sounds like one of those things that you'd see on a conspiracy theory meme with the iceberg and different levels of derangement

It'd be one of the deeper tiers for sure

It would not be difficult mein Fuhrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh... I'm sorry. Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess... that ah, dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.

# ? Jun 11, 2021 17:55

Homeless Friend: Jul 16, 2007

indigi posted:

https://twitter.com/gavinmuellerphd/status/1401495962313502728

lenin 3 stroke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wEpofHt6f8

Homeless Friend has issued a correction as of 18:00 on Jun 11, 2021

# ? Jun 11, 2021 17:58

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

dead gay comedy forums posted:

imho, the best way atm to demonstrate that is the incredible amount of money that major companies dedicate to stock buybacks, in order to maintain stock prices or to increase value according to expectations

should that not happen, the stocks will not appreciate in value, which to other investors would mean "uh oh they are becoming less profitable", even if the company is perfectly fine in cash reserves and revenue, leading to disbursement of that company

shouldnt stock buybacks be interpreted more often as a tax evading dividend

# ? Jun 11, 2021 20:59

wynott dunn: Aug 9, 2006; What is to be done?

Who or what can challenge, and stand a chance at beating, the corporate juggernauts dominating the world?

stock buybacks can have multiple purposes that serve the interests of the capitalist class

# ? Jun 11, 2021 21:03

tokin opposition: Apr 8, 2021; I don't jailbreak the androids, I set them free.

WATCH MARS EXPRESS (2023)

indigi posted:

underground greenhouses

These are actually a thing! You can find info under the name walipini. It keeps the tempature inside fairly consistent throughout the year. It's only like 6' under, so you can still get pretty good sun if you're strategic about where you build it. All you need is a lot of physical labor, some plastic to keep the walls from collapsing, and some urethane sheets to function as a roof and air gap.

No idea if they mean that or some harebrained scheme and I do not care enough to find out

# ? Jun 11, 2021 21:07

namesake: Jun 19, 2006; "When I was a girl, around 12 or 13, I had a fantasy that I'd grow up to marry Captain Scarlet, but he'd be busy fighting the Mysterons so I'd cuckold him with the sexiest people I could think of - Nigel Mansell, Pat Sharp and Mr. Blobby."

Underground greenhouses are growing weed in abandoned bomb shelters and nuclear missile silos.

And good luck to them.

# ? Jun 11, 2021 21:09

emTme3: Nov 7, 2012; by Hand Knit

Moon Shrimp posted:

Ok I see now, you guys are talking about there being fewer opportunities to reinvest profits.

ya basically it's that the mass of profit (the ratio of production cost to market price) of your detergent isn't the rate of profit of the industry. the mass of profit as be quite high even while the rate of profit is totally stagnant. in fact, i think the mass of profit is so high likely because the rate of profit is so low.

# ? Jun 11, 2021 22:01

Centrist Committee: Aug 6, 2019

splifyphus posted:

ya basically it's that the mass of profit (the ratio of production cost to market price) of your detergent isn't the rate of profit of the industry. the mass of profit as be quite high even while the rate of profit is totally stagnant. in fact, i think the mass of profit is so high likely because the rate of profit is so low.

is this a breakdown in the M-C phase or the C-M phase, or is that the wrong way to think about it?

it�s cool to think of capital as a stagnant, accumulating mass and profit as energetic capital in motion

# ? Jun 11, 2021 22:31

namesake: Jun 19, 2006; "When I was a girl, around 12 or 13, I had a fantasy that I'd grow up to marry Captain Scarlet, but he'd be busy fighting the Mysterons so I'd cuckold him with the sexiest people I could think of - Nigel Mansell, Pat Sharp and Mr. Blobby."

Centrist Committee posted:

is this a breakdown in the M-C phase or the C-M phase, or is that the wrong way to think about it?

it�s cool to think of capital as a stagnant, accumulating mass and profit as energetic capital in motion

I'd say it's a failure of the C-M' stage but because the system knows that that part isn't working it doesn't even initiate the M-C part of the circulation. There's always the possibility of buying more C - always workers with some spare time somewhere and machinery can always be ordered - but throwing more labour into their operations would lower productivity overall and there doesn't seem to be any opportunity to expand their markets which would make a large amount of capital investment worthwhile any more.

It's a good point about thinking of already existing capital as the stagnant lump though, really demonstrates the 'dead labour' part of capitalism.

# ? Jun 11, 2021 22:56

dead gay comedy forums: Oct 21, 2011

yeah the necromantic analogies of capital really suit best when thinking about these incredible masses of value that do... nothing

something that isn't obvious - at least in my opinion - is that capital's value (not the value of capital) can only be realized in its execution, otherwise that amount of money might as well not exist at all, which is where fictitious capital starts to come up. Taking money out from derivative stocks into cryptocurrency titles is, in material economic terms, a non-existant operation: it is value that never gets to be realized as such because it never becomes even remotely close to money

so, as this blob of "value" increases in expectation of further profits, it starts to drain actual value from other means, from speculators to small investors simply looking for something with greater returns (but who were investing in solid stuff), and that blob starts devouring realized value as a result

what I am getting at is that excessive speculative and fictitious capital when pumped non-stop becomes Aldritch from dark souls 3 okay

# ? Jun 11, 2021 23:21

emTme3: Nov 7, 2012; by Hand Knit

Centrist Committee posted:

is this a breakdown in the M-C phase or the C-M phase, or is that the wrong way to think about it?

it’s cool to think of capital as a stagnant, accumulating mass and profit as energetic capital in motion

hrmmm ya kind of. so the rate of profit is the ratio of the total surplus value to the capital invested at the macro level. what moon shrimp is observing is the ratio of the cost of production to final market price. they're related but fundamentally different measurements taken at different moments of the whole cycle. the former determines the latter, not the other way around.

i think, at least. it's been a while.

e: so you can't extrapolate the RoP from your daily purchases, and it's perfectly possible to have a very low rate of profit that nonetheless generates a big ol mass of profit in absolute terms.

emTme3 has issued a correction as of 00:11 on Jun 12, 2021

# ? Jun 11, 2021 23:54

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

it is also interesting to note that despite the extraordinary amounts of money introduced into the global economy since 2008, inflation* has been very moderate. this makes a lot of sense if you consider inflation a measure of realised value and note that a great deal of the increased money supply is never actually going to be realised, but exists to prop up the balance sheets of strategically important actors in the political economy

*yes yes i know

# ? Jun 11, 2021 23:59

Algund Eenboom: May 4, 2014

Samir Amin's Eurocentrism 👀😤🙏👑

# ? Jun 12, 2021 04:57

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013

V. Illych L. posted:

it is also interesting to note that despite the extraordinary amounts of money introduced into the global economy since 2008, inflation* has been very moderate. this makes a lot of sense if you consider inflation a measure of realised value and note that a great deal of the increased money supply is never actually going to be realised, but exists to prop up the balance sheets of strategically important actors in the political economy

*yes yes i know

I used to think that too, but the spigot won't turn off once those balance sheets are secured. So one of the places all that extra money will go into is commodity markets.

# ? Jun 12, 2021 05:04

Hodgepodge: Jan 29, 2006; Can't post for 217 days!

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

I used to think that too, but the spigot won't turn off once those balance sheets are secured. So one of the places all that extra money will go into is commodity markets.

lol until i read this i though the first world would never see a revolution, but that's like a textbook "thing that triggers unexpected revolution" right there

not until we've all suffered and the most vulnerable among us die though

# ? Jun 12, 2021 05:58

paul_soccer12: Jan 5, 2020; by Fluffdaddy

Homeless Friend posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wEpofHt6f8

# ? Jun 12, 2021 06:02

Emmideer: Oct 20, 2011; Lovely night, no?; Grimey Drawer

# ? Jun 12, 2021 11:04

wynott dunn: Aug 9, 2006; What is to be done?

Who or what can challenge, and stand a chance at beating, the corporate juggernauts dominating the world?

is that from the stanford subreddit experiment?

# ? Jun 12, 2021 11:44

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

I used to think that too, but the spigot won't turn off once those balance sheets are secured. So one of the places all that extra money will go into is commodity markets.

this is a reasonable point, but imo it's a point for the new reality, not the reality of 2008-2020 where you didn't really see the especially unheard of stuff going on rn

# ? Jun 12, 2021 12:25

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

yr new gurlfrand! posted:

is that from the stanford subreddit experiment?

he got banned even from there for posting a thread lamenting Castillo's win in Peru

https://www.reddit.com/r/tankiejerk/comments/nuocb6/an_actual_tankie_is_about_to_win_in_my_country/

quote:

I've banned OP and locked the comments, this post was posted to twitter. After looking through OP's comments I have found support for a ban, this includes them defending the CIA, self describing as a liberal, and called the removal of fascists authoritarian, alongside other reasons. I'm locking comments in order to stop people from twitter commenting

# ? Jun 12, 2021 13:30

The Voice of Labor: Apr 8, 2020

that face when you're half a page into losurdo's liberalism and the second example is the liberal position's defense of slavery as a positive good

# ? Jun 12, 2021 19:03

Algund Eenboom: May 4, 2014

I'll paste a big stupid block quote here, since it is related to the discussion of the laws of value, and also, because I like it

quote:

Marxism is not a scientific analysis of the operation of capitalist markets. It is both far more and something other than that. To reduce it to a political economy of capitalism is to remain on the terrain of (bourgeois) economism. Vulgar economism proposes to discover the laws that govern the functioning of markets. "Pure" economics believes that it has discovered these laws and, what is more, concludes that the markets in question are self-regulating in so far as they are deregulated, i.e., left free from all administrative fetters, which are artificial by nature. This pure economics is not interested in actually existing capitalism, which is a total system, economic, social, and political, but studies the laws of an imaginary capitalism that has nothing to do with reality.

Marx endeavors to do something else. He poses other questions, in the first place, concerning the specificity of capitalism as a stage of historical
development. In this effort, he places commodity fetishism (economic alienation) at the heart of the specificity of capitalism. The result of this alienation is that capitalist society is directly controlled by the economic, the instance that is not only determinant in the last analysis, but in capitalism is also dominant. Consequently, the laws that govern this economy appear to function as objective laws that are external to society, like laws of nature. This is not the case in earlier systems, since the dominant instance in those cases is not the economic.

The concept of value is the expression of the alienation specific to capitalism. The pragmatic critique of Marx's theory of value, which points out that prices are different from values and that the rate of profit calculated in prices is inevitably different from the rate calculated in value terms, concludes that the Marxist theory of value is false. However, this critique does not understand the question that Marx poses. The difference between the two rates of profit is necessary. Without that difference, the exploitation of labor by capital would be transparent (as are forms of exploitation prior to capitalism) and capitalism would not be capitalism, defined precisely by the opacification of this reality. This is the condition for the economic laws to appear as laws of nature. The law of value not only governs the reproduction of the capitalist economic system, it also governs all aspects of social life in this system. The market economy becomes the market society.

Furthermore, Marx does not advance the (false) hypothesis of a general equilibrium the tendency of which the market would disclose. On the contrary, for Marx, markets (and thus capitalist markets) are unstable by nature. The system moves from disequilibrium to disequilibrium without ever tending towards any sort of equilibrium.

Thus, it is necessary to explain each of these moments of successive disequilibria. In order to do that, one cannot avoid taking into consideration social relations of force, i.e., class struggles, forms of the domination of capital, and the hegemonic alliances that this domination concretely implies, hence politics. It is these relations and the changes that affect them (in other words, social adjustments) that make the history of really existing capitalism. Economics and politics are inseparable. Pure economics is a myth. There is no historical determinism (economic or otherwise) prior to history. The future is unpredictable because it is made by social conflicts.

Marx's project is not an economics; it is an historical materialism.

Is it possible to analyze really existing capitalism as a group of capitalist formations that may be more or less advanced, depending on the circumstances, but moving in the same direction or does it straightaway have to be considered as a worldwide whole that is characterized by complexity and polarization? Marx and Engels provide no clearcut answer to this question. Their writings can be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that the global expansion of capitalism would end up homogenizing the world or making it uniform. In other words, the backward countries would be able to catch-up to and, in the end, resemble the most advanced countries. This interpretation is certainly possible since there are texts to support it. Moreover, it clarifies Marx's error, which is to underestimate (even ignore) the polarization immanent to the global expansion of capitalism. A more careful reading of Marx, however, leads to a more nuanced conclusion.

Marx combines an immanent tendency to social polarization with the fundamental logic that governs the accumulation of capital. This tendency to polarization is continually countered by the social struggles that define the context within which accumulation occurs. The dialectical relation between the tendency to polarization and reactions against this tendency has nothing in common with the method of ordinary economics, i.e., the search for the general equilibrium spontaneously and naturally produced by the market. It is poles apart.

What is observed in reality? On the one hand, the tendency towards pauperization and polarization is not obvious if the central countries of the global capitalist system (20 percent of the system's total population) are considered over the long run. This observation is the main argument against Marxism: "You see, Marx's predictions have been contradicted by history." However, if the world capitalist system is considered as a whole, then the polarization is more than obvious, it is unquestionable.

A theoretical conclusion should be drawn from these twin observations: that in capitalism (as is so often the case with complex systems) the whole (the world) determines the parts (the nations) and not the reverse. The whole is not the sum of its parts but their combination. From that, it should be concluded that polarization is immanent to global capitalism and, consequently, the less developed countries are not on the path that will lead them to catch-up with the most advanced capitalist countries.

This conclusion persuades us to continue the work Marx began, to complete and strengthen it by paying more attention to the global character of the system, bringing out its characteristics and tendencies. In order to do that, it is necessary to go beyond the "law of value" as understood within the context of the capitalist mode of production and grasped at its highest level of abstraction. We must specify its real form of existence as the "law of globalized value." That implies, in turn, an attentive analysis of the successive phases of the development of global capitalism and their particularities, after which the specific successive forms of the law of globalized value can be examined.

Such was and remains the challenge to which historical (i.e., subsequent to Marx) Marxism must respond. Has it done this? There was and still is much resistance to doing so because of the tendency towards Eurocentrism, which is strong in Western Marxism. That tendency leads to a refusal to grant imperialism all of the decisive importance that it has in really existing capitalism. The Marxism of the Second International (including Karl Kautsky) was pro-imperialist and consequently encouraged an interpretation of Marx that is linear, evolutionist, and semi-positivist. Lenin, followed by Mao, opened the way to go further. In Lenin, this occurred with the theory of the weakest link: the (global) socialist revolution begins in the peripheries (in this case, Russia), but must be followed quickly by socialist revolutions in the centers. Since this expectation was disappointed by subsequent events, hopes were transferred to other peripheries (after Baku in 1920).⁷ This expectation was confirmed by the success of the Chinese Revolution.

But then new questions are posed: what can be done in the backward peripheries that break (or want to break) with capitalism? Build socialism in a single country?

The question and the challenge remain unresolved: the polarization immanent to really existing capitalism places revolt or revolution for the majority of the people who live in the periphery of the system (the 80 percent of humanity forgotten by bourgeois ideology and, to a large extent, by Western Marxism) on the agenda and hinders radicalization in the centers. That implies a new view of what I call the "long transition from global capitalism to global socialism." This is not the view of the Eurocentric First and Second Internationals or the view of the Third International (socialism in one country).

The challenge remains because the historical Marxism of the governments established following the revolutions made in its name became well and truly Marxisms of legitimation. Undoubtedly, the term is dangerous and ambiguous. Any organic ideology is necessarily "legitimating" even if it remains a critical reflection on reality. The reality that it legitimates should be uncovered: what did historical Marxism suppose was its object of thought? What were its theses and proclaimed objectives? Did it legitimate what it claimed? Or did it, indeed, legitimate something else that should be recognized?

Stalinist Soviet Marxism was certainly a form of ideological legitimation for the practice of the ruling class of the Soviet Union and particularly its international policy. In this practice, the real reasons for the choices made, whether good or bad, were largely hidden by the ideological discourse.

Some historical Marxisms in the Third World, after the Second World War, also fulfilled legitimating functions for the choices and policies of the governments that I call national-populist and anti-imperialist. How did they do this, why, in what terms, to what point, and what were the long-term consequences? These questions remain to be discussed calmly, avoiding approval or condemnation determined in advance. It should also be noted that some of these contemporary Third World Marxisms were formed on the basis of the, sometimes strong, critique of the national-populist systems, even when they were anti-imperialist. From there, the critique naturally led to a further critique of the Marxism of the Soviet state.

Historical materialism is not an economic determinism. The concept of overdetermination proceeds directly from the structuralist concept of social systems. It suggests, at least implicitly if not explicitly, that the determinisms that operate at the same time in the different instances of social reality are convergent because they all contribute simultaneously to the reproduction of the system, its adaptation to the requirements of its evolution, and the crisis that necessitates its surpassing. Economic determinism and the determinisms that govern the political, ideological, and cultural realms all converge and, consequently, "overdetermine" the movement. Thus, if a transformation has become necessary economically, it is also necessary politically, ideologically, and culturally, and vice versa. Further, if one accepts that the economic is determinant in the last instance, overdetermination can easily lead to an economistic reading of history in which the other instances adjust themselves to the demands of the economic. This is not my understanding of historical materialism for two reasons.

First, I do not believe that it is correct to pose the question of the relations among the different instances in analogous terms for all stages of history. The autonomy of the economic instance is specific to capitalism, whereas in the tributary systems it is subordinated to the political instance, as I pointed out above.

Second, my understanding of historical materialism is completely incompatible with structuralism and the concept of overdetermination. In my view, each of the instances is governed by its own specific logic. The status of each is either determinant in the last instance (the economic) or dominant (the political in tributary systems, the economic in capitalism, the cultural in the communist future). The logic of each instance is autonomous from the logic in each of the others and not necessarily, still less spontaneously, complementary to them. Hence, the instances are frequently in conflict and, a priori, it is not possible to predict which will win out over the others. In my opinion, Marx completely analyzed the economic logic of capitalism (accumulation) as its dominant character, that is, the channels through which the economic generally succeeds in asserting its dominance over the logics of the political, ideological, and cultural. I have said, on the other hand, that neither Marx nor historical Marxisms have offered analyses as powerful concerning the logics of the other instances, and I do not think that any progress has been made in these areas outside of Marxism.

The specific logic of each instance is expressed by a particular determinism. The conflict among these determinisms gives history a distinctive degree of uncertainty and, hence, distinguishes it from areas governed by the laws of nature. Neither the history of societies nor that of individuals is programmed. Freedom is precisely defined by this conflict between the logics of the different instances, which makes it possible to choose among various alternatives. Hence, in opposition to the concept of overdetermination, I propose the concept of under-determination.

Does this mean that societies are chaotic and irrational? Not at all; they are always orderly and rational in the sense that the conflict between the different logics of the instances (the under-determination) always finds a solution through the subjection of some logics to others. However, this solution is but one among several possible solutions. Social, political, ideological, and cultural struggles thus shape societies by imposing one choice of order and rationality over other ones.

⁷The First Congress of the Peoples of the East was held in Baku in 1920.

# ? Jun 12, 2021 19:04

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; ^{how can we not talk about family

when family's all that we got?}

cool

# ? Jun 12, 2021 19:24

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

Algund Eenboom posted:

The difference between the two rates of profit is necessary. Without that difference, the exploitation of labor by capital would be transparent (as are forms of exploitation prior to capitalism) and capitalism would not be capitalism, defined precisely by the opacification of this reality.

this bit of your quote reminds me of this article: https://taiyangyu.medium.com/addressing-common-criticisms-of-the-labor-theory-of-value-bdf49281fab

which points out that statistical studies have revealed that there is, in fact, a dialectical relationship between the law of value on one hand and the transformation of values into prices + profit equalization on the other hand that combine to determine the rates of profit in various industries. neither is immediately apparent, both are in play

Ferrinus has issued a correction as of 20:46 on Jun 12, 2021

# ? Jun 12, 2021 20:44

Trash Ops: Jun 19, 2012; im having fun, isnt everyone else?

rate of profit r lol

# ? Jun 12, 2021 21:32

tokin opposition: Apr 8, 2021; I don't jailbreak the androids, I set them free.

WATCH MARS EXPRESS (2023)

What if there was an app that took in your hourly wage and replaced all monetary values in your browser with hours of labor to purchase

# ? Jun 12, 2021 22:30

Yossarian-22: Oct 26, 2014

tokin opposition posted:

What if there was an app that took in your hourly wage and replaced all monetary values in your browser with hours of labor to purchase

labor value coin to da moon baby

# ? Jun 12, 2021 22:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 12:50

Yossarian-22: Oct 26, 2014

editing post and adding filler bc wrong thread

engels: most underrated marxist or what???

# ? Jun 12, 2021 23:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

«‹›388 »