|
The parts that are just documenting the problem and arguing that exists are well researched and good. With as deep in denial as some people are about how hosed things have become, just that much is a worthwhile endeavor. But his solution of "maybe if we just ask the locust swarm our system has created to eat less we can avoid a famine" is pretty weaksauce and can safely be ignored.
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:The parts that are just documenting the problem and arguing that exists are well researched and good. With as deep in denial as some people are about how hosed things have become, just that much is a worthwhile endeavor. But his solution of "maybe if we just ask the locust swarm our system has created to eat less we can avoid a famine" is pretty weaksauce and can safely be ignored. What solution do you mean? EDIT: Oh, are we still talking about Piketty in the Kapital thread? I guess every day we fall further from communism's light. almost there has issued a correction as of 15:23 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
1-07: Chapters 12, 13 and 14 "So you have to look at Marx's theory of technology as not simply being about machinery but also about organisational form." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqEKLuPCgZ0 So there are limits to the absolute surplus a capitalist can extract simply by working his purchased labour-power harder and longer. How else can he increase his surplus? By seeking relative surplus value - reducing the value of labour-power and so the length of time required to reproduce that value rather than produce surplus value. This is analysed in chapter 12, and then 13 and 14 cover the closely related concept of increasing productivity by cooperation and division of labour. These two chapters are somewhat anthropological and describe the history and the effects of these processes under capitalism as well as their utility for production. We leave off at the precipice of the chapter on machinery, the longest in the book which will take two weeks to get through. Timestamps: 0:44:35 - chapter 13 0:59:32 - chapter 14
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
I recommend anybody to read this article written by David Harvey for Jacobin that goes into some detail discussing the more poetic interpretations of Kapital: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/david-harvey-marxs-inferno-review-capital-grundrisse/ Before reading this article I wondered what could have driven Marx to write a treatise that challenged and interrogated the power structures of capital. Surely something radical like Kapital would be difficult to write and make him lose the grace of, and become a perennial target for, the bourgeoisie who, Marx surely knew, would do everything in their power to discredit and belittle him and his ideas. And, to no small degree, we see the nefarious results of his sacrifice to this day in the wholesale dismissal of Marx's work by the intellectually bankrupt economic departments of elite universities and the general stigma of his name. So what could have driven a man to such a Christ-like sacrifice of his own material for the sake of the greater good? and what sort of sights would a man have to experience before he was ready to offer himself to that alter of love? In Chapter 10: The Working Day we get a glimpse into the pits of huddled agony that must have first driven Marx to make that sacrifice. Marx wrote during a time of rapid industrialization and was not alone in associating the furnaces of factory production with the chambers of Hell. William Blake wrote a poem I recommend you check out called "The Tyger" about the new landscape in London under the new industrial paradigm that does everything but explicitly state his loss of faith in God because of it. In Kapital we see why this might be the case. We're given accounts of children as young as 8 working in sweltering hot factories littered with irritants and toxic debris who are denied to lunch away from the machine they are fettered to. Capitalists who will pay and peddle any falsehood necessary to ensure that child isn't treated humanely, and a system more than willing to oblige him. In Marx's words: quote:"All methods for raising the social productivity of labour . . . distort the worker into a fragment of a man, they degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, they destroy the actual content of his labour by turning it into torment; they alienate . . . from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they deform the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the juggernaut of capital." This, I believe, is the emotional core for Marx's mission in writing Kapital. And sure, one could argue that London today doesn't look anything like the London of 1850. But you don't need to look further than China or India to see that that reality hasn't been eliminated, it's just been relocated because it's dangerous. Visible Hell makes rebels out of us all. almost there has issued a correction as of 21:52 on May 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
the first time i read capital i got to chapter 10 and said "why isn't this chapter 1"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:Before reading this article I wondered what could have driven Marx to write a treatise that challenged and interrogated the power structures of capital. Surely something radical like Kapital would be difficult to write and make him lose the grace of, and become a perennial target for, the bourgeoisie who, Marx surely knew, would do everything in their power to discredit and belittle him and his ideas. And, to no small degree, we see the nefarious results of his sacrifice to this day in the wholesale dismissal of Marx's work by the intellectually bankrupt economic departments of elite universities and the general stigma of his name. So what could have driven a man to such a Christ-like sacrifice of his own material for the sake of the greater good? and what sort of sights would a man have to experience before he was ready to offer himself to that alter of love? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
ironic, ain't it? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:In Chapter 10: The Working Day we get a glimpse into the pits of huddled agony that must have first driven Marx to make that sacrifice. In addition to this, I really, heartily recommend anyone reading Capital and wondering what the bother is with all this technical mumbo-jumo to go check out Engels' The Condition of the Working Class in England from the library. Engels writes with a barely contained rage - at times speaking with almost sheer incredulity - at the monstrously indifferent cruelty doled out onto the working class in the service of self-styled kings carving out their insignificant fiefdoms. The fact that these conditions have barely changed, having merely shifted location, lends the book the kind of modern relevance that lets you understand the emotions that compelled Marx to dedicate a significant portion of his life to writing a book with the breadth and scope of Capital. I think an early quote of his ("Material force can only be overthrown by material force, but theory itself becomes a material force when it has seized the masses.") summarizes perfectly what he hoped to achieve by writing it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
The historical chapters have really made me appreciate the value of this book beyond just laying out a mathematical theory. You could reject every word of the value theory and still be left with a powerful description of what a critical observer could see happening in 19th century capitalism, with obvious relevance to the modern day. With the theory on top it's easy to see why the book remains a classic.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Vermain posted:In addition to this, I really, heartily recommend anyone reading Capital and wondering what the bother is with all this technical mumbo-jumo to go check out Engels' The Condition of the Working Class in England from the library. Engels writes with a barely contained rage - at times speaking with almost sheer incredulity - at the monstrously indifferent cruelty doled out onto the working class in the service of self-styled kings carving out their insignificant fiefdoms. The fact that these conditions have barely changed, having merely shifted location, lends the book the kind of modern relevance that lets you understand the emotions that compelled Marx to dedicate a significant portion of his life to writing a book with the breadth and scope of Capital. I think an early quote of his ("Material force can only be overthrown by material force, but theory itself becomes a material force when it has seized the masses.") summarizes perfectly what he hoped to achieve by writing it. As a companion to The Condition of the Working Class, people might also want to read Jack London's "The People of the Abyss", for a sort of journalistic account of London poverty circa 1900. Orwell's "The Road to Wigan Pier" updates the theme to the mid-20th century. Nothing ever changes, and nothing ever changed.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Here's some homework for anyone who's read ahead. Someone posted on reddit:quote:A legitimate question. So, within "The Capitalist Papers", Dustbringer accuses Marx of Axiological intrinsicism, meaning he assigned commodities intrinsic values. So, my question is this: How can we prove that either A: Marx is not guilty of this or B. How can we objectively prove intrinsic value? Taking in what I've read so far plus what's been said in this thread, I said: quote:Marx states that value exists in a commodity only in the context of social production and exchange. So it is in the object, but it is shaped by the society that produced it and/or exchanges it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Oh my god, objectivists, building ever more elaborate systems of terminology to compensate for never getting any smarter.quote:To show the falsehood of axiological intrinsicism (the thing I accuse Marx of and who we will return to in just a bit) it is necessary only to show that this supposed intrinsic attribute is actually a relational one, i.e. to demonstrate the impossibility of existents being preferentially valenced per se. Marxists have literally spent the last 150 years writing about value being a social relation. Congratulations, objectivists: You've defeated a straw Marx with the real one. Anyway, when Marxists speak of "intrinsic" value, it doesn't denote a physical property of reality, but a social one embodied in a particular form by the social processes that generated it. Unless I've missed something, the paper seems to mount a relentless assault against the former understanding. In terms objectivists might understand, they're Committing the Most Odious and Egregious Fallacy of Equivocation. What's really puzzling here is that they do take care to note that Marx didn't argue that value is absolute. (For clarity: Marx says "commodities ... are only relative expressions of social labour-time and their relativity consists by no means solely of the ratio in which they exchange for one another, but of the ratio of them all to this social labour which is their substance.") How the hell can you make that distinction and then use the version of "intrinsic" they do? I imagine one would have to be pretty ideologically hidebound. That paper quotes (without citation) a footnote from a much more interesting essay on the topic, but seems to have missed the rest of it. So here, for some supplemental reading, is the essay they didn't bother to name: Andrew Kliman - Marx's Concept of Intrinsic Value. If you have the time and inclination, by all means, decide for yourselves whether the Rand cult is doing the topic justice. EDIT: quote:If anyone was ever in doubt about Marx's fundamental commitment to axiological intrinsicism this passage is all she would need. This illustrative analogy fails for the same reason Marx's basic analysis of the commodity fails; value is not an intrinsic but a relational phenomenon. Area is an intrinsic attribute of two-dimensional figures and is "decomposable" into different and dissimilar figures each containing their own respective areas. Area is a self-contained phenomenon but value is NOT. The existence of a calculating subject is not necessary for the existence of area but only its determination. The existence of a valuing subject is necessary for both the existence of value and its determination. More equivocation here, though subtler. The commodity form itself is not mind-independent, but only exists "in gear" within a particular set of social processes. So in fact the analogy actually holds very well; to the form of the commodity, value is an intrinsic component, just as to the form of a polygon, area. The only way to treat a commodity as a mind-independent structure is to consider it only in its physical properties — a mass of treated shoe leather arranged in certain shapes, or what have you. But in doing so we've abolished the traits that made it specifically a commodity. So, they fail to keep their sights fixed on commodities qua commodities, rather than just "goods," or products or matter in general. Edit 2: If you wanna get real pedantic, you can point out to them that Euclidean geometry isn't mind-independent, either, but a construct we impose upon what we now recognize as more complex, curved spaces. Aeolius has issued a correction as of 23:58 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
mind if I quote you on reddit? This is a quality response
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Yeah, no prob. I rephrased one line slightly to hopefully be clearer also thankee~
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Peel posted:1-05: Chapters 7, 8 and 9 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
1-08: Chapter 15 sections 1-3 "Capitalists start to fetishise the machine, and believe that the machine is the answer to all things." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lpijzd2fBw This chapter is timely given we're all talking about technological unemployment again. The first part defines machinery in distinction to tools and traces its development. The second part explains the position of machinery in relation to value theory. The third, longer part discusses the impact of the new technology on labour and class struggle: first the swallowing of more women and children into wage labour as physical strength is less important, second the extension of the working day, and third the 'intensification' of the labour process when the extension of the working day proves impossible as discussed in chapter 10. There's also a footnote, number four in section 1, which Harvey spends a long time on and around at the start of the lecture as it's a rare explicit methodological statement. Timestamps: 0:02:39 - footnote 4, methodology & theory of history 0:52:25 - chapter 5 section 1 1:10:15 - chapter 5 section 2 1:16:06 - chapter 5 section 3 Peel has issued a correction as of 18:36 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Motherfuck this is a long chapter.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Yeah. 1-3 isn't so long, but I think it's worth reading ahead to section 5 or so this week to cut down on the load for next week.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Oh poo poo I only got like 15 pages left out of the whole chapter so I'm like crazy ahead. I thought the whole chapter was the week's assignment.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
lol poo poo I stay a week ahead so I can make the posts so I guess I'll read up and join you.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Chapter 15-5 posted:In India, on the other hand, the English cotton machinery produced an acute effect. The Governor General reported as follows in 1834-5: 'The misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce. The bones of the cotton-weavers are bleaching the plains of India.' Of course, in turning the weavers out of this 'temporal' world, the machinery caused them a 'temporary inconvenience'. god drat
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
Peel posted:god drat  - that or Marx calling out specific bourgeois economists for being loving stupid assholes in ever more inventive ways.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
I've been reading them on and off and it's kind of fun to get a look at the Thomas Friedmans and National Reviews of the 19th century.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Peel posted:god drat My favorite bit of the chapter so far is when he talks about the English children dying young from opiate use and Marx said, "India and China have had their revenge."
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Peel posted:I've been reading them on and off and it's kind of fun to get a look at the Thomas Friedmans and National Reviews of the 19th century. the more things change, the more things stay the same
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Marx posted:The Yankees have invented a stone-breaking machine. The English do not make use of it, because the “wretch” who does this work gets paid for such a small portion of his labour, that machinery would increase the cost of production to the capitalist. I love reading Capital because so much applies today. This is just another instance of that--it sounds eerily like the question of replacing minimum wage workers with robots.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
I'm still catching up on last week's assignment, but here's a passage that is not unique to MOP, and would just as well apply to used cars: quote:But in addition to the material wear and tear, a machine also undergoes, what we may call a moral depreciation. It loses exchange-value, either by machines of the same sort being produced cheaper than it, or by better machines entering into competition with it. [64] In both cases, be the machine ever so young and full of life, its value is no longer determined by the labour actually materialised in it, but by the labour-time requisite to reproduce either it or the better machine. It has, therefore, lost value more or less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
1-09: Chapter 15 sections 4-10 "That is, capital has taken over skill, incorporated that in the machine, has taken over intellectual capacities, and utilised those to its own advantage, has taken over science, and uses that to its own advantage, and these all become powers, or appropriated powers, by which capital can dominate labour." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HA_5GjDpxk I hope you like machinery and its effects because Marx wrote a lot about it. We spend a lot of time on the effects of machines on the class struggle and the capitalist system. Mechanised industry is for Marx where capitalism comes into its own as revolutionary, expanding production by leaps and bounds and creating or entangling itself in the questions of technological unemployment (spoilers: it's real, but there are separate countervailing forces) and how to realise the burgeoning surplus on the market. It transforms the world market through colonialism and the non-factory manufacturing, handicraft and domestic industries. And it transforms the worker, on the one hand into a degenerated 'a living appendage of the machine', on the other hand into a 'developed individual' with improved capacities who can take up different social tasks and positions. In the lecture there's an interesting discussion of the luddites, the question of whether machines can be 'socially neutral' and the soviet project (second 6) and the persistence of non-factory capitalism (section 8) following on from the remarks at the end of last lecture about the 'Manchester' vs 'Birmingham' systems of production. Timestamps: 0:11:30 - chapter 15 section 5 0:21:15 - chapter 15 section 6 0:36:19 - chapter 15 section 7 0:40:54 - chapter 15 section 8 0:56:10 - chapter 15 section 9 1:15:52 - chapter 15 section 10 Peel has issued a correction as of 12:19 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:I'm still catching up on last week's assignment, but here's a passage that is not unique to MOP, and would just as well apply to used cars: I like this a lot as an answer to that question. Value is social value so changes as the social environment changes, even if the object itself does not. Next week and the week after are both long, more than 100 pages, but after those it's just one shorter week and we're done with Volume 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
quote:The life-long speciality of handling one and the same tool, now becomes the life-long speciality of serving one and the same machine. Machinery is put to a wrong use, with the object of transforming the workman, from his very childhood, into a part of a detail-machine. [103] In this way, not only are the expenses of his reproduction considerably lessened, but at the same time his helpless dependence upon the factory as a whole, and therefore upon the capitalist, is rendered complete. Here as everywhere else, we must distinguish between the increased productiveness due to the development of the social process of production, and that due to the capitalist exploitation of that process. In handicrafts and manufacture, the workman makes use of a tool, in the factory, the machine makes use of him. There the movements of the instrument of labour proceed from him, here it is the movements of the machine that he must follow. In manufacture the workmen are parts of a living mechanism. In the factory we have a lifeless mechanism independent of the workman, who becomes its mere living appendage. Marx ragin' against the machine is 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:I love reading Capital because so much applies today. This is just another instance of that--it sounds eerily like the question of replacing minimum wage workers with robots. Something that many people (even marxists) always, always forget is that the relationship between the costs of industrialisation vs mass human labour is not a fixed ratio but does and will vary constantly. Increased mechanisation and industrialisation devalues (through deskilling) human labour until it's so badly paid and menial that it's profitable again (this process also depowers the labouring class through temporary mass unemployment, leading to a race to the bottom for workers' rights as people accept worse and worse conditions in order to get any work at all). People who confidently predict the imminent robot takeover which leaves 99% of the population unemployed always forget this - they know that robots will be able to do everything, but they forget the other half of the equation. If there's a single penny of extra profit to be made by employing a human then humans will continue to be employed, because if your business doesn't employ them some other fucker's will. The coercively competitive nature of capitalism is one of the core themes of this book, and the capitalists aren't going to let everybody live a live of indolent post-scarcity luxury when there's still profit to be made by having us cleaning up poo poo for a starvation wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Something that many people (even marxists) always, always forget is that the relationship between the costs of industrialisation vs mass human labour is not a fixed ratio but does and will vary constantly. Increased mechanisation and industrialisation devalues (through deskilling) human labour until it's so badly paid and menial that it's profitable again (this process also depowers the labouring class through temporary mass unemployment, leading to a race to the bottom for workers' rights as people accept worse and worse conditions in order to get any work at all). There isn't a penny of profit to be made employing humans at that point though. Even a starvation wage human is more expensive than a big ol Roomba.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:Marx ragin' against the machine is I love the almost posthuman/cyberpunk tone this book sometimes has. It's relevant to ~my concerns~. also lol I didn't know that's what that smiley was called
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:There isn't a penny of profit to be made employing humans at that point though. Even a starvation wage human is more expensive than a big ol Roomba. Even having someone manage the roombas is still employing a human. for there to be profit there must be variable capital.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:There isn't a penny of profit to be made employing humans at that point though. Even a starvation wage human is more expensive than a big ol Roomba. What you think they run on? magic and fairy dust? It takes a massive upfront capital investment to introduce automation; you need engineers and managers to oversee the process. You're gonna spend $1m a year on a robot to wipe poo poo out of toilets when you could employ half a dozen desperate people to do it for less than a 1/10 the cost. One of Marx's observations about automation and industrialisation is also that it's not a smooth or overnight process - it's characterised by a sort of pulsing cycle of high labour costs leading to limited automation, leading to mass layoffs, leading to a crash in the price of labour, leading to mass hiring (of a deskilled and weakened labour force) and expansion of production, the price of labour rising again, and back to step one. On a long enough timescale (like by the year 30,000AD) maybe your assertion is right, but that's hardly relevant to the idea of automation in the near future (like within the next century) when the discussion actually has a practical component.. communism bitch has issued a correction as of 17:52 on Jun 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:Even having someone manage the roombas is still employing a human. for there to be profit there must be variable capital. Yeah but there's way less people involve in maintenance and management than there would be as janitors. Otherwise the roombas would have no point. That's why it's gonna cause unemployment. Oberleutnant posted:What you think they run on? magic and fairy dust? It takes a massive upfront capital investment to introduce automation; you need engineers and managers to oversee the process. You're gonna spend $1m a year on a robot to wipe poo poo out of toilets when you could employ half a dozen desperate people to do it for less than a 1/10 the cost. It sounds like you're talking about R&D, the cost of which is absorbed by firms making the autos (and mitigated by economies of scale), not firms buying and deploying them. And like I just said, of course if the initial investment is greater than the savings people won't do it, but that won't be the case (at least not for long). Oberleutnant posted:One of Marx's observations about automation and industrialisation is also that it's not a smooth or overnight process - it's characterised by a sort of pulsing cycle of high labour costs leading to limited automation, leading to mass layoffs, leading to a crash in the price of labour, leading to mass hiring (of a deskilled and weakened labour force) and expansion of production, the price of labour rising again, and back to step one. Why in the world would it need to take that long? The crash in the price of labour has a floor (determined by either the minimum wage of the civil unrest threshold) and if that floor is above the cost of automated alternatives then the next step of that cycle can't eever happen. We've already seen this in manufacturing and it's about to happen in a whole bunch of new sectors because of AI. That's what automation fears are about. This is confirming all my worst fears that Marxists are gonna be just as unprepared for the automation crisis as neoliberals because they can't get past outmoded definitions of "worker" and "productivity."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Yeah but there's way less people involve in maintenance and management than there would be as janitors. Otherwise the roombas would have no point. That's why it's gonna cause unemployment. Half the world is still using industrial automation that barely surpasses anything in Britain or America 150 years ago because they can do it cheaper with underpaid human labour, and you're scared of robots sweeping everything away overnight. It is not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Half the world is still using industrial automation that barely surpasses anything in Britain or America 150 years ago because they can do it cheaper with underpaid human labour, and you're scared of robots sweeping everything away overnight. It is not going to happen. You can't outsource truckers, cashiers, janitors, or sewer workers (sorry Baloogan) to China and Singapore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:You can't outsource truckers, cashiers, janitors, or sewer workers (sorry Baloogan) to China and Singapore. You don't seem to be arguing the point you think you're arguing here. Some industries are threatened by automation. That's nothing new or exceptional. The industries are predominantly service based (as your post indicates) but this is just a product of western economies being service economies. This will probably result in a crash in employment and working conditions in these countries. This is nothing unusual for capitalism. Those outsted workers will be picked up by other industries which move in to exploit the flood of cheap labour. It's the same industrial pattern over again. The service economy has just been more historically resistant to it so it seems new and scary. Nothing exceptional is happening here. The robot revolution is just a part of the same industrial revolution that's been taking place since the steam engine was invented.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:You don't seem to be arguing the point you think you're arguing here. Some industries are threatened by automation. That's nothing new or exceptional. The industries are predominantly service based (as your post indicates) but this is just a product of western economies being service economies. To a certain extent you can see this as just an extension of Marx's economic theories, specifically the tendency to replace living labor with dead labor. But it has enormous implications for Marx's political theories because it moves the proletariat from being the source of all value, (and therefore possessing immense political power as a result of the ability to withhold their labor), to being surplus people who live and die at the whim of the bourgeoisie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 18:45
|
|
