(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
Centrist Committee posted:half of Capital is about how capitalists constant fought the Factory Acts to get younger, smaller, nimbler children to work terrible machines for more of the day what's your point
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Zodium posted:maybe a stupid question but is profit basically a tax then? under feudalism, you pay tax to the king to use the land they control. under capitalism, you pay tax to the owner to use the means of production they control. as i understand it, profit, tax and rent are all essentially the same thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
Anime Bernie Bro posted:as i understand it, profit, tax and rent are all essentially the same thing would you call it “theft” ???
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 04:13
|
|
|
Lmao posted:In 1976, the magazine Das Blatt argued that forbidden sexual desire, such as that for children, was the “revolutionary event that turns our everyday life on its head, that lets feelings break out and that shatters the basis of our thinking.” A few years later, Germany’s newly established Green Party, which brought together antiwar protesters, environmental activists, and veterans of the student movement, tried to address the “oppression of children’s sexuality.” Members of the Party advocated abolishing the age of consent for sex between children and adults.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
Well, that's terrible
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:i think it's still useful for highlighting that the owners of capital today can treat the law of the land as optional, just like feudal lords. they are treated with leniency due to the hero-worship they get, they can lobby to change laws to benefit themselves, they can buy caribbean islands to escape normie morality, and if worst comes to worst they can escape the law by living in exile, roman polanski style yeah, we have a defacto aristocracy (which was a rebrand of oligarchy to sound good to people who had read aristotle in the first place). it will become de jure if the situation stabilizes sufficiently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 04:32
|
|
|
really putting the "libertarian" in libertarian socialism
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
you think. you’d think that at this point, in the 21st century, people would have learned to just not bring up the age of consent at all, just don’t talk about it. people who do always reveal themselves to be creeps. unless you’re in France, then please talk about establishing one
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 05:06
|
|
|
they’re working on it, finally, but they needed to go through MeToo v2 #MeTooInceste first https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210212-finally-france-seeks-to-establish-age-of-consent-at-15
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:So, how similar is your average Etsy crafter or YouTuber to a serf? Pener Kropoopkin posted:They literally have more in common with the craftsmen of market cities. Marx wrote at some length about the artisan mode of production, that artisan's are unique in their usual ownership of both their own means of production and ownership of the product. I seem to recall him stressing that artisans were not isolated producers, nor reliant upon the serfs, capitalists, or landowners, but that they existed largely in their own economic bubble with other artisans, apart from the dominant mode of production. The modern artisan, of which I have some claim to be, is wholly different, it is something of an artifact, completlely removed from the economic bubble that made it unique. I make pottery, right now I'm not working in my own studio, but even when I was I am not making in the same context as artisans in the late medieval or even victorian era. I buy capitalist inputs, and I sell essentially luxury goods (art) to the well off. This is basically the problem William Morris ran into, he tried to recreate the artisan mode of production to escape capitalism, but could never escape as his little oasis had to interact with and submit to capitalism. Artisan's were able to operate as they did because they were apart from the main productive mode, something that is no longer possible. I do feel that making things as a modern artisan is still a somewhat liberatory act, but is at best a teachable moment about why capitalism sucks on a personal level. Much like Morris it is too easy to say "this is the solution" when really it's basically a small area of the economy not totally subjagated to the logic of capitalism. (this is all from memory some time ago, so I could be way off) Also etsy artists are a bad example as they tend not to be proffessionals, usually that is someone with a job and just making a little art on the side to sell. In some ways I guess they are more like serfs in that sense, but I don't think that was how Cpt intended it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:Marx wrote at some length about the artisan mode of production, that artisan's are unique in their usual ownership of both their own means of production and ownership of the product. I seem to recall him stressing that artisans were not isolated producers, nor reliant upon the serfs, capitalists, or landowners, but that they existed largely in their own economic bubble with other artisans, apart from the dominant mode of production. The modern artisan, of which I have some claim to be, is wholly different, it is something of an artifact, completlely removed from the economic bubble that made it unique. I make pottery, right now I'm not working in my own studio, but even when I was I am not making in the same context as artisans in the late medieval or even victorian era. I buy capitalist inputs, and I sell essentially luxury goods (art) to the well off. This is basically the problem William Morris ran into, he tried to recreate the artisan mode of production to escape capitalism, but could never escape as his little oasis had to interact with and submit to capitalism. Artisan's were able to operate as they did because they were apart from the main productive mode, something that is no longer possible. I do feel that making things as a modern artisan is still a somewhat liberatory act, but is at best a teachable moment about why capitalism sucks on a personal level. Much like Morris it is too easy to say "this is the solution" when really it's basically a small area of the economy not totally subjagated to the logic of capitalism. (this is all from memory some time ago, so I could be way off) yeah, it always seemed to me that you end up with capital allowing you to benefit directly from your own labour as a treat (to themselves mostly)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 05:58
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:
side gigs or hobbies for extra cash is a tendency that's literally been around since the neolithic and never really went away tbh. depending on circumstances sometimes even slave class members did this, in the places where slaves were allowed to own money. id go as far to say as it's completely separate from socioeconomic structure, especially since its generally not at the scale of even a single regular worker's production. certainly a modern factory could probably make every single Etsy hobbyists' junk, if it were all one identifiable commodity. so it's an especially bad example unless you somehow make enough handmade NO MASK? gently caress OFF bumper stickers to feed your family
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 06:12
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:yeah, it always seemed to me that you end up with capital allowing you to benefit directly from your own labour as a treat (to themselves mostly) I would argue that working as an artisan is not something capitol is allowing, consistently market forces push you to "proffesionalize" by hiring people to make stuff for you under your name. I've worked in studios for artists making their style and signing their name, its quite common. Most big name artists that still work in traditional mediums work this way. So I do think insisting to remain "small time" and working for yourself is an act of resistance/rebellion, but is not revolutionary in of itself. I can work as an artist for myself, but I'm not overthrowing anything, I've just made my little corner of the capitalist world more agreeable to myself. I still depend on the larger capitalist system to provide the material conditions that allow me to work like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 07:22
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:So, how similar is your average Etsy crafter or YouTuber to a serf? point of clarification here but "owns a computer" doesn't mean a YouTuber owns the "means of production" because they don't own YouTube as a distribution mechanism for their content one of the largest issues with being a "content creator" is that you're boned if you make something that YouTube decides isn't worth monetization or is hidden algorithmically from your audience
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 07:30
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:side gigs or hobbies for extra cash is a tendency that's literally been around since the neolithic and never really went away tbh. depending on circumstances sometimes even slave class members did this, in the places where slaves were allowed to own money. id go as far to say as it's completely separate from socioeconomic structure, especially since its generally not at the scale of even a single regular worker's production. certainly a modern factory could probably make every single Etsy hobbyists' junk, if it were all one identifiable commodity. Bumper stickers is a bad etsy example, as drop shipping businesses are basically micro-capitalism, you exploit overseas labour and never even touch the product, basically contracting with a real capitalist. I mean more like someone selling their knitting or pottery on etsy, but usually make less than a couple thousand a year. The idea ,I think, was that they are like serfs in that they own their tools, and they own the product of their labour. This is something that should be thought of as seperate from artisan labour, which is very similiar on appearence, but represents the totality of someones labour. Basically the hobby artisan vs full-time artisan. So I think we are in agreement about etsy hobby artists not even representing a full person's labour. Nitpicking: I would say side gigs have been around since after the neolithic era, as labour was so different then, with almost no specialization of labour, that determining what was someone's job vs side gig is basically pointless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 07:31
|
|
|
serfs are a very unique social class that was really only present in premodern Europe anyway. we're not going to see anything remotely close to it any time soon. especially because the system of agricultural feudalism flat out did not function without extensive common land, which is a concept that is straight up dead. even stuff like public parks or libraries isn't common land, it's merely land privately owned by the state. although arguably heavily exploitative contract labor like truckers who have to pay mortgages on their truck to the company who employs them could be close in some cases
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 07:48
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:I would argue that working as an artisan is not something capitol is allowing, consistently market forces push you to "proffesionalize" by hiring people to make stuff for you under your name. I've worked in studios for artists making their style and signing their name, its quite common. Most big name artists that still work in traditional mediums work this way. So I do think insisting to remain "small time" and working for yourself is an act of resistance/rebellion, but is not revolutionary in of itself. I can work as an artist for myself, but I'm not overthrowing anything, I've just made my little corner of the capitalist world more agreeable to myself. I still depend on the larger capitalist system to provide the material conditions that allow me to work like that. in Capital Marx makes the distinction between manufacture, which is really just collecting a bunch of artisans using tools under one roof and either working them in parallel or breaking down their tasks in sequence, and industry which is when machines replace the human manipulation of tools and workers just mindlessly operate the machines. it’s one of those two step transformations that I can’t quite intuitively wrap my head around
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 07:50
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:in Capital Marx makes the distinction between manufacture, which is really just collecting a bunch of artisans using tools under one roof and either working them in parallel or breaking down their tasks in sequence, and industry which is when machines replace the human manipulation of tools and workers just mindlessly operate the machines. it’s one of those two step transformations that I can’t quite intuitively wrap my head around The transformation is the accumulation of profit from mass production in the manufactory being used to invest in industrial capital, therefore cutting out artisans entirely and transforming the labor on the factory floor from skilled craftsmanship into mechanistic labor. Human labor is still needed to guide the manufacturing process, but the creativity of the laborer is never a factor - unless it's to come up with ways to jerry rig the machinery in order to keep it going.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 08:49
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:serfs are a very unique social class that was really only present in premodern Europe anyway. we're not going to see anything remotely close to it any time soon. especially because the system of agricultural feudalism flat out did not function without extensive common land, which is a concept that is straight up dead. even stuff like public parks or libraries isn't common land, it's merely land privately owned by the state. also my understanding is that serfdom was largely a reaction to labor shortages caused by various historical events in various regions at different times. so maybe last year I had plenty of freemen peasants to get the work done but now so many are dead of plague and wages are skyrocketing so fast I have to declare tenant-farmers on my land themselves property and part of the land else I risk losing them to wage competition. edit: competition from jobs in cities, jobs that aren't "tenant-farmer" "smallcrofter", etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:in Capital Marx makes the distinction between manufacture, which is really just collecting a bunch of artisans using tools under one roof and either working them in parallel or breaking down their tasks in sequence, and industry which is when machines replace the human manipulation of tools and workers just mindlessly operate the machines. it’s one of those two step transformations that I can’t quite intuitively wrap my head around I say above those things could be cool and good but part of the point is that under capitalism lol whoops* it's just that one leads to the other: Pener Kropoopkin posted:the accumulation of profit from mass production in the manufactory [is] used to invest in industrial capital, therefore cutting out artisans entirely and transforming the labor on the factory floor from skilled craftsmanship into mechanistic labor. * (there is no "whoops")
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 14:58
|
|
|
The transformation of labor through industrial capital isn't altogether bad for society in material terms. Guilds preserved their labor power by practicing exclusivity in who could be accepted as apprentices, and the labor transformation in production made it so anybody could be an industrial laborer with a bit of education & training. Overthrowing the guild system was still good in the aggregate, even if from the individual level on the factory floor, the transformation left laborers worse off. Or to put it another way, it is cool and good through the massive increase of productivity and availability of manufactured goods & the destruction of guild monopolies - but it's bad in the new ways that it imisserates labor. The new contradictions simply demand their resolution through socialism. It wouldn't be possible in the long run for labor to be truly liberated without this historical transformation having occurred. If it hadn't happened then we'd still be peasants who could never hope for a better life, because the guild system would be barred to us. Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 15:24 on Jul 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
pack it in marx heads, this one random page I flipped to in the groundbreaking new book American Marxism just destroyed the Labor Theory of Value
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
lol. as we know the value that labor creates is magical and rises from the ground much like spring water, and certainly can't be impeded or redirected. the result is that labor is actually a commodity, a human resource if you will,
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
i am maddest at them saying proletariat revolutionaries instead of proletarian revolutionaries
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:i am maddest at them saying proletariat revolutionaries instead of proletarian revolutionaries Nerd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
I keep trying to get through that page, but I get to "Marxist class warfare rhetoric of the Democratic Party and their surrogates" and my brain just sort of stops interpreting words at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
my professor of political economy was kind of an hilarious rear end in a top hat. he had this fantastic, hilarious bit where he saved the "best" answers to his tests, especially what he called the "prodigious wonder-child moments". He is a hardcore Marxist and made it clear from day one. Obviously, this got a lot of libertarians and liberals rattling in visible ways, but he also made it very clear he played it fair - he never failed anyone because of their ideology. the problem, as it was, is that students got geared up and wanted to trounce the political economists. And what he said was basically look, you wanna have a go at Marx because you believe he is totally loving wrong, that's your right and I give you an honest shot to try. But what you should know is that if you are better than Marx, well, you totally should steamroll a humble university professor. of course, every semester, you had one kid or two trying and he would come up with their exam - anonymous of course - and use it as a "learning opportunity" to "review what we've looked so far". During my time, this one dolt brought that loving same example - if Marx was right, the Third World should be much better of. "everybody here knows a lot of people who became very rich just by working, like the cleaning staff of our campus", the kid got red and left the room and tried to get our signatures to sue him and drag his rear end to the board to fire him lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:I keep trying to get through that page, but I get to "Marxist class warfare rhetoric of the Democratic Party and their surrogates" and my brain just sort of stops interpreting words at that point. it's not hard to understand, they're just using right wing jargon. Marxism means "anything I don't like that is in any way bureaucratic" also ty thread for the cool responses to my dumb post a few pages back
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
Nancy Pelosi: "We're a capitalist party and that's just the way it is." That Dude: "This is Marxist class warfare rhetoric!!!" he's technically correct, but not in the way he thinks
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
i totally skipped over the part where he also says use value isn't real and prices are set by demand + production cost basically lol. even under classical economics that's just straight up wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
picking up and putting down the boxes at the warehouse 1000 times each, supercharging their value by channeling my labor energy into them like a spirit bomb and making everyone at the distribution center a millionaire
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:i totally skipped over the part where he also says use value isn't real and prices are set by demand + production cost basically lol. even under classical economics that's just straight up wrong. these loving people don't even read the totally pro-rich classical guys like bastiat or ricardo, or worse, when they read their poo poo out of context they think those guys are socialist (like what often happens to adam loving smith)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
they don't even loving read their main guys ffsThe Road to Serfdom posted:Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
worse even are the harvard world class a+ list goddamned morons who stumble into a conclusion that is "actually capitalism is not so bad!"; suddenly they get a boatload of cash and think that their "success" is proof of their validity; are so loving oblivious that they can't even realize why they are being shoved money in the mouth because of their infantile and fantastic notions of how social reality works, where circumstances do not connect and build upon each other; no, they read some combination of stats, spouse some amenable bullshit that they call interesting conclusions and suddenly holy poo poo somehow they are in a private jet to the private caribbean isle resort of somebody who really enjoyed their work? whoa!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
im pretty sure those types know what they're doing. same with journalists who mysteriously can make anything an anti-worker take
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:im pretty sure those types know what they're doing. same with journalists who mysteriously can make anything an anti-worker take honestly I do not know because this type of "intellectual" has been cultivated for many decades in our collective culture now. There's nothing mercenary in their rhetoric if somebody bothers to read it more analytically, which is where I agree with you: such a demeanor is encouraged and cultivated by the relevant material interests because it makes it easier to spouse that sort of bullshit without issue. It is "I am just raising questions" in the worst, naive way possible, bad faith by proxy if possible
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ReginaIplau/status/1416759584966864899 aaayyyyy u make upa da numba in da china!! why a u gotta do dat huh???
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:honestly I do not know because this type of "intellectual" has been cultivated for many decades in our collective culture now. There's nothing mercenary in their rhetoric if somebody bothers to read it more analytically, which is where I agree with you: such a demeanor is encouraged and cultivated by the relevant material interests because it makes it easier to spouse that sort of bullshit without issue. It is "I am just raising questions" in the worst, naive way possible, bad faith by proxy if possible e.g. krugman, pelosi, aoc, et al will pop up their head and bleat single payer when it is in their interests and then start ruthlessly attacking the policy when their interests align in attacking it there are of course true believers
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:https://twitter.com/ReginaIplau/status/1416759584966864899 lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 00:15
|
|