(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
Orange Devil, I agree that Quan vs Qual is probably a big source, along with the word utility. That aside, I've got an issue with your prisoner dilema student/secretary bit. I studied econometrics from a professor who got his doctorate while studying under John Nash himself. Game theory is horrifically abused constantly in pop culture and western society. Nash did apply demand curves to strategy, which I think is cool and interesting, but it's not strictly required. It's not a defense of capitalism, just a useful tool when applied. Strategy is often over looked. Game theory requires at least 2 "players" and 2 strategies. The "classic prisoners dilemma " has aged poorly. It assumes the cops have equal information about the players. Then there's "a beautiful mind". Best I can tell, there's not a single use of game theory in there. The "dating girl" scene is has at least 4 players, explained as 2. Example coming next.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
mycomancy posted:Wow look at all you loving chumps getting baited by a guy who came up with the concept of an anti-coat. All y'all need Stalin. True anti-coat has never been attempted!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 01:25
|
|
|
An anti-raincoat that attracts rain instead of repels it could be very useful for drought-prone regions. I wouldn't dismiss it as useless out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 01:32
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:I'm just trying to understand if something can have a use value, then lose that use value as a result of an external change. free croup godammit
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
the retarded marxist gimmick fuckibg owns and im crying lolling
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 01:52
|
|
|
the anti coat lmfao
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 01:53
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:I'm just trying to understand if something can have a use value, then lose that use value as a result of an external change. i think this is what NFTs are
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:06
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Wow look at all you loving chumps getting baited by a guy who came up with the concept of an anti-coat. All y'all need Stalin. You're talking as if the average person in this thread isn't absolutely itching to exercise their brains Basically this 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:07
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:the retarded marxist gimmick fuckibg owns and im crying lolling I was letting to marinate for a bit more because I wanted to see where it was going with it
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:11
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:i think this is what NFTs are nfts have speculative purposes tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:I was letting to marinate for a bit more because I wanted to see where it was going with it it’s good to tax the gimmick
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:17
|
|
|
i want an anti-coat...
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:28
|
|
|
billsphoenix is my favorite poster
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:28
|
|
|
I’m not punishing Bill, I’m letting people looking at lepers see his genius
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:37
|
|
|
anti coat is clearly a bikini. your stupid if you think otherwise
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:38
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:nfts have speculative purposes tho i dont think they do anymore
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:43
|
|
|
Perhaps an anti-coat has a negative use value, that is, its existence reduces the use value of a regular coat. If you were to combine an anti-coat and a coat, their use values would annihilate into something with no use value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:44
|
|
|
we must deny the imperialists anti-coat technology otherwise they will annihilate the linen supply
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:59
|
|
|
I’m just wondering if marx ever considered if it wasnt just the capitalist, but also the workers linen their pockets
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 03:01
|
|
|
anti-coat is black mirror coded
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 05:11
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:I’m just wondering if marx ever considered if it wasnt just the capitalist, but also the workers linen their pockets 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 05:22
|
|
|
I'm an idiot so bear with me: would fictitious capital (derivatives, stocks without dividends, etc.) count as something with exchange-value but no use-value? They're based on real things in some abstract sense but not real commodities. The only way to make money with these is through arbitrage and I can't think of a human need (use-value) for a number in a bank's computer somewhere. Edit: maybe I'm asking: is arbitrage labor? Now I'm more confused than when I first had this thought. Joe Chip has issued a correction as of 05:40 on Mar 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 05:32
|
|
|
Halser posted:You're talking as if the average person in this thread isn't absolutely itching to exercise their brains jesus wept
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 05:39
|
|
|
i havent been following this struggle session two closely but if this guy's truly a live one great job torturing "anti-coat" out of him 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 05:41
|
|
|
Joe Chip posted:I'm an idiot so bear with me: would fictitious capital (derivatives, stocks without dividends, etc.) count as something with exchange-value but no use-value? They're based on real things in some abstract sense but not real commodities. The only way to make money with these is through arbitrage and I can't think of a human need (use-value) for a number in a bank's computer somewhere. Nah, you're not an idiot; these are reasonable things to wonder! Things like derivatives, stocks, futures, etc., are claims on real value somewhere down the chain. E.g., in theory, mortgage-backed securities have, off in the distance somewhere, a house. Except where, as you say, it goes into fictitious territory where there are more claims than could possibly be honored. I don't generally think stocks, etc., count as "use-values," since they have no independent existence as an object of utility apart from their claim on some other definite final value. And as the financial structures that support them become more abstracted from production, and more legally complex, I tend to think these are creatures that, even if birthed somewhere and sometime in the economic base, seem to be "adopted" by the superstructure, with their ultimate validity coming down to legal enforcement amid chains of handshakes that grow vast beyond reckoning. As for arbitrage: Yes, it's labor, but whereas it's not productive of surplus value it would be classed as "unproductive" labor in the Marxist sense. Though, as with all unproductive labor, that's not to say it has no useful end; it can still be a beneficial pursuit to an individual person (or capitalist venture) via capital gains; arbitrage is a process as old as merchant capital itself, and promotes coherency in the laws by which all the other regulative forces of capitalism play out — that is, arbitrage is what enforces things like "the law of one price" that quite a bit of Marx's analysis depends on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 07:46
|
|
|
Joe Chip posted:I'm an idiot so bear with me: would fictitious capital (derivatives, stocks without dividends, etc.) count as something with exchange-value but no use-value? Oh but there's use-value and quite a special one too! It comes from being a "money commodity". Marx establishes money as the "commodity of commodities", which is exactly how financial vehicles obtain their use-value. Their purpose is to become means of financial activities, which besides providing different ways of flow for capital, also gives them with speculative capacity - the ability to earn money through the social appreciation of that financial paper. It's a special relation because their use-value lies strictly as an abstract tool of capital itself, in which something like a stock, for example, provides a representation of both social appreciation and real value of a company - in capitalism, different money-forms are necessary. That's the use-value. It's exchange-value is entirely divorced from that necessity, due (also) to its speculative property, which obscures and deforms the real value therein, but this exact separation is a constitutive factor of its use-value, because it allows capital to assume its unstable (or volatile) and virtual forms. Among other things, this makes it possible for it to self-destruct its own use-value in order to realize it's exchange-value, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 07:48
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:i want an anti-coat...
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 07:52
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:I agree that Quan quan him
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 07:55
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:It's a special relation because their use-value lies strictly as an abstract tool of capital itself, in which something like a stock, for example, provides a representation of both social appreciation and real value of a company - in capitalism, different money-forms are necessary. That's the use-value. I hedged my reply with "generally" because I am open to this way of thinking, but I've never found a slam-dunk convincing argument for it, and can't remember any explicit treatment of it in Vol 3. Do you know of a passage that discusses this directly?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 08:05
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:the retarded marxist gimmick fuckibg owns and im crying lolling
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 09:33
|
|
|
It's kind of funny that you just want a word that tells you that a thing is of any use to anyone and you end up at anti-coats No, having a use value doesn't mean that you can sum up a hammer and a screwdriver. You can't just look at the hammer and know the social relations that produce and consume it. Those are difficult questions! This is chapter 1! You can't just assume them solved right here! Edit:fixed some utter gibberish genericnick has issued a correction as of 14:57 on Mar 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 10:29
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Orange Devil, I agree that Quan vs Qual is probably a big source, along with the word utility. Ok I'm curious what your issue is. quote:I studied econometrics from a professor who got his doctorate while studying under John Nash himself. Game theory is horrifically abused constantly in pop culture and western society. So many words, none of them tell me what your issue is. I don't understand how any of this relates to anything we've been talking about. This is even more nonsensical to me than anti-coats. At least that's just mudpies in a new form. Not to even mention that the prisoner's dilemma was an aside to demonstrate another way in which western econ training fucks up your brain. The actual discussion we were having was about the terms Marx introduces and explains in Chapter 1 of Volume 1 of Capital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 12:54
|
|
|
I always thought prisoners dilemma was a game where psychos narc on themselves in a low stakes environment so i know to avoid them in real situations
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 13:52
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Maybe this is what I've had wrong the whole time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYmn3Gwn3oI
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 15:00
|
|
|
I had a great post about prisoners dilemma lost to the probe, I'll try and rework. Anti coat was poor phrasing, I'm not referring to negative utility or anything like that. I was thinking about something like what if someone like Mike Lindell made a coat. Except unlike a regular coat this one has no function. And unlike the pillow, has failed marketing, so literally no one buys it. He only invented it as a cash grab, never wanting one himself. Let's call it a my-coat instead. Would this terrible product, designed only as a cash grab that failed, have use value? If I look at it from utility and capitalism, it's utility is none.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:I had a great post about prisoners dilemma lost to the probe, I'll try and rework. Does it have a function and does it have use value are the same question
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:I hedged my reply with "generally" because I am open to this way of thinking, but I've never found a slam-dunk convincing argument for it, and can't remember any explicit treatment of it in Vol 3. Do you know of a passage that discusses this directly? IIRC, there's none as such, this is an interpretation after Marx that I learned from our professor back then when studying Vol. 3. I think he also mentioned a take very similar to yours, too. Like, if I understand it correctly, this is one of the problems that result from both the unfinished status of the analysis of financial capital (and like Engels said, the ongoing transformations that the writing of Marx couldn't fully scope out years before) and that advancement on labor theory of value practically stopped to a halt. Like, I think both takes are correct but have different references of context: Karl Marx, Economic Manuscripts posted:Let us for a moment consider the commodity gold, that is money, in a state of rest and its relations with other commodities. All prices of commodities signify definite amounts of gold; they are thus merely notional gold or notional money, i.e., symbols of gold, just as, on the other hand, money considered as a token of value appeared to be merely a symbol of the prices of commodities.[1] Since all commodities are therefore merely notional money, money is the only real commodity. Gold is the material aspect of abstract wealth in contradistinction to commodities which only represent the independent form of exchange-value, of universal social labour and of abstract wealth. So far as use-value is concerned, each commodity represents only one element of physical wealth, only one separate facet of wealth, through its relation to a particular need. But money satisfies any need since it can be immediately turned into the object of any need. Its own use-value is realised in the endless series of use-values which constitute its equivalents. All the physical wealth evolved in the world of commodities is contained in a latent state in this solid piece of metal. Thus whereas the prices of commodities represent gold, the universal equivalent or abstract wealth, the use-value of gold represents the use-values of all commodities. Gold is, therefore, the material symbol of physical wealth. It is the "epitome of all things" (Boisguillebert), the compendium of social wealth. As regards its form, it is the direct incarnation of universal labour, and as regards its content the quintessence of all concrete labour. It is universal wealth in an individual form.[2] Functioning as a medium of circulation, gold suffered all manner of injuries, it was clipped and even reduced to a purely symbolical scrap of paper. Its golden splendour is restored when it serves as money. The servant becomes the master.[3] The mere underling becomes the god of commodities. [4] The take I gave on earlier comes from this notion, that just as paper-money came to be, that stocks and everything else are just money-forms, derivations of the money-commodity. If stocks etc are something else, yeah, I don't know if that works. But then again, the use-value of money itself requires a societal fiction to happen; AFAIK Marx didn't get to learn about the Inca and that they, for example, didn't attribute a monetary property to gold (iirc this is even a point of South American Marxists about this).
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Except unlike a regular coat this one has no function again, how do you make a coat that has no function
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:again, how do you make a coat that has no function You've already put more thought into it than BP did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:I had a great post about prisoners dilemma lost to the probe, I'll try and rework. "A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another." This is the definition of a commodity. Answer your own question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:25
|
|