(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
BillsPhoenix posted:It was actually shocking how few people have read marx in here, and even fewer have even a vague understanding.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
tristeham posted:stfu! Sure, explain the transformation problem, and I'll gently caress off. Not anyone - you tristeham.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Sure, explain the transformation problem, and I'll gently caress off. Not anyone - you tristeham. gently caress off, anti-coat guy. The rest of you, do you see what happens when you give trolls even a little bit of praise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
Tristeham specifically has told me to gently caress off a dozen times, and he doesn't understand even the basics. The transformation problem has been posted about multiple times, in detail in this thread since I've posted. It's also one half of the contradiction, though importantly the resolution itself isn't the contradiction, there is no issue with how Marx resolves it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 01:49
|
|
|
tristeham posted:stfu!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 01:54
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Tristeham specifically has told me to gently caress off a dozen times, and he doesn't understand even the basics. The transformation problem has been posted about multiple times, in detail in this thread since I've posted. there is no transformation problem. you were tricked because you don't read. now take your anti-coat and scram
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:there is no transformation problem. you were tricked because you don't read. now take your anti-coat and scram
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 02:26
|
|
|
Dancer posted:Hi, I read this thread very slow and will see your reply in a week or so. The Voice of Labor posted:if you're doing the math for your factory, constant capital is money already spent so it's defined numbers, it's constants in a formula. variable capital is an x in the formula because the factory owner can pay out x wages this week, fire eveyone except the orphans and pay out y wages next week, it's variables in a formula Ferrinus posted:it's also variable because the amount of return it generates for you will vary with stuff like the length of the working day or how intense and fast-paced the work you impose on your laborers is. you generally can't squeeze more production out of a machine or a slab of material but you can out of a worker (and conversely, if you aren't paying close attention that worker can slack off and generate LESS than you were counting on) I'll add the following because why not. quote:[The Physiocrats] were able to establish this... value of labour-power is manifested in the price of the necessary means of subsistence, hence in a sum of definite use-values. Consequently, without being in any way clear as to the nature of value, they could conceive the value of labour-power, so far as it was necessary to their inquiry, as a definite magnitude. If moreover they made the mistake of conceiving this minimum as an unchangeable magnitude — which in their view is determined entirely by nature and not by the stage of historical development, which is itself a magnitude subject to fluctuations — this in no way affects the abstract correctness of their conclusions, since the difference between the value of labour-power and the value it creates does not at all depend on whether the value is assumed to be great or small. quote:Adam Smith, like all economists worth speaking of, takes over from the Physiocrats the conception of the average wage, which he calls the natural price of wages. The concept of the wage shifted from a bare necessity determined by nature, to a variable amount socially determined by whatever is necessary to reproduce not only the labor, but the laborer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 03:27
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:The rest of you, do you see what happens when you give trolls even a little bit of praise? stop being a bitch, bitch
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 04:28
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Sure, explain the transformation problem, and I'll gently caress off. Not anyone - you tristeham. the transformation problem is you can't transform the pudding in your skull into something firmer
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 04:29
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Tristeham specifically has told me to gently caress off a dozen times, he's right and should say it more
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 05:13
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:gently caress off, anti-coat guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 07:06
|
|
|
finished chapter 8,found this much easier to read than chapter 1 and felt like I really got what Marx was trying to say. I really appreciate now, more than ever before, that labor is the core building block to commodities. I really appreciate the way that he breaks it down to basics and illustrates that none of these other factors influence anything until labor enters the equation. this was probably my favorite part of the reading, real gently caress this poster energy -- real gently caress off billsphoenix energy. Chapter 8, Capital posted:From this we may judge of the absurdity of J. B. Say, who pretends to account for surplus-value (Interest, Profit, Rent), by the “services productifs” which the means of production, soil, instruments, and raw material, render in the labour-process by means of their use-values. Mr. Wm. Roscher who seldom loses an occasion of registering, in black and white, ingenious apologetic fancies, records the following specimen: - “J. B. Say (Traité, t. 1, ch. 4) very truly remarks: the value produced by an oil mill, after deduction of all costs, is something new, something quite different from the labour by which the oil mill itself was erected.” (l.c., p. 82, note.) Very true, Mr. Professor! the oil produced by the oil mill is indeed something very different from the labour expended in constructing the mill! By value, Mr. Roscher understands such stuff as “oil,” because oil has value, notwithstanding that “Nature” produces petroleum, though relatively “in small quantities,” a fact to which he seems to refer in his further observation: “It (Nature) produces scarcely any exchange-value.” Mr. Roscher’s “Nature” and the exchange-value it produces are rather like the foolish virgin who admitted indeed that she had had a child, but “it was such a little one.” This “savant sérieux” in continuation remarks: “Ricardo’s school is in the habit of including capital as accumulated labour under the head of labour. This is unskilful work, because, indeed, the owner of capital, after all, does something more than the merely creating and preserving of the same: namely, the abstention from the enjoyment of it, for which he demands, e.g., interest.” (l.c.) How very “skilful” is this “anatomico-physiological method” of Political Economy, which, “indeed,” converts a mere desire “after all” into a source of value "Very true Mr professor!" E: speaking from experience from my green belt training, none of this poo poo is controversial. it's only controversial in so much as they understand they have to control who is allowed to know it. capital has found different ways to describe everything and distract from the core discussions, obfuscate the path to labor. but they all agree --they have to, it's the only way to compete because they understand that only one side of it is variable and adjustable to increase surplus value extraction and profits. hubris.height has issued a correction as of 19:46 on Mar 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Marx patting J.B. Say on the head going "ooh very good, you had a thought".
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
Chapter 8 builds up one half of what will become a contradiction. People here aren't really following Marx so I'll say it as simply as I can, you can decry "lol stfu" and move on. Machine is analogous with technology in a broad sense. Marx is careful to make sure we account for the labor that goes into creating the machine is accounted for when that machine is put to use to make a commodity. The contradiction is when he says this transfer of value is not proportional. If it's not proportional, there must be another source of value loss that isn't accounted for. That's the contradiction. He sets up a perfect argument about the transformation problem. He then combines that with machinery and depreciation. But then he breaks his own definition and claims it's not proportional. This is why western economists reject a lot of good theories beyond LTV. Falling profits, trpf, the inevitable communism all rely on some loss of value. Which Marx had proven couldn't happen. A few solutions from the western academic world that support Marxs claims next.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
So for the solutions, from the western academic world, to a the contradiction, in no order. 1 - Marx knew about this flaw, and died before he could adjust his dialetic around machines and depreciation. It can be done, he just team out of time. 2 - It's entropy. It's not an analogy to entropy. It's literally the same entropy causing global warming. Natural resources of the world are consumed, reducing the profit that can be generated. Marx's claim about both isn't a contradiction, it's just incomplete, and this decline explains it. There are more, but the defenses all align in the contradiction is over blown. If I don't eat a probe, I'll give one of the attacks of western economics, that at least in America, isn't really defendable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Chapter 8 builds up one half of what will become a contradiction. If you can't explain to me the prisoner's dilemma, I can't possibly tell you why you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:The contradiction is when he says this transfer of value is not proportional. If it's not proportional, there must be another source of value loss that isn't accounted for. Hey Bill, quote the line you're talking about, and which chapter of Capital the line appears in, please. And, if you would, include 2-3 paragraphs before and after the line itself. We'll muddle through this together, buddy. fwiw volume 1 generally doesn't take into account things like depreciation, shrinkage, commodities that are otherwise destroyed before making it to market, etc., because at this point he's trying to provide an abstracted account that holds various things (like price and value) steady so the explanation can focus on what he's arguing is the prime mover of it all — the essence, distinct from various sources of accident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
Prisoners dilemma, from when I asked it. It's impossible to answer, there isn't enough info, it's intentionally a terrible example. We assume prisoners value staying out of prison equally. I.e. 2 years in prison vs 1 year in prison is valued the same as 6 years in prison vs 5 years. If that assumption is true, we have a linear "avoid prison" demand curve, where the figures I set up all have equal Nash equilibriums, so we still couldn't tell. Game theory rightly gets a lot of poo poo because of its use in politics. Political game theory will assume polls are accurate. Game theory is far more useful in games of incomplete information with qualitative inputs and results. Quantitive game theory nearly always has to make assumptions about an end result.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:30
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:Hey Bill, quote the line you're talking about, and which chapter of Capital the line appears in, please. And, if you would, include 2-3 paragraphs before and after the line itself. We'll muddle through this together, buddy. You can reject this, I've already included the quotes from Marx. Instead of muddling through text, just work it out. If a machine can create 5 coats, then it will transfer all of its value equally to those coats. There is no value lost?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:The contradiction is when he says this transfer of value is not proportional. If it's not proportional, there must be another source of value loss that isn't accounted for. marx says that the transfer of exchange-value is not (necessarily) proportional to a machine's use-value and general effect on production. there's literally not a contradiction here because exchange- and use-value are orthogonal in the first place. a red 3x3 square has a richer hue than a pink 3x3 square but the same area i actually explained this to you with math a page or two ago; i'm sure you saw it and are just pretending you didn't. for the benefit of general readership, though, i will briefly recapitulate here: one machine might work twice as fast as another but still cost the same to buy and make the same number of commodities before breaking down, such that the fast and slow machine have identical value-transfer despite one's practical effect on production being double the other's if you're curious, marx goes into depth on the ramifications of having a shorter production cycle in volume 2
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
Anyhow, this has run its course, those comments aren't trolls. Sraffa has a whole book about it, Keen has a shorter paper, I obviously can't prove it out in a couple posts. This only went on so long cause some people were abusing the poo poo out of the entropy explanation- which has been posited as a cause of decline in world profitability, not an analogy. Learn and grow so you can fight the good fight or don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
i cannot emphasize enough how much the thing you're staking your grand attack on is a really basic, and so certainly willful, misreading of regular english text, like not spotting that a different word is used in different statements
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
I can tell I'm getting more fluent in stuff I wasn't strong on and shaking the rust off stuff I was because I can find the flaws in Bill's reasoning on my own, then scroll down to get confirmation from a scholar of Marx that I was right. What a service! Next time I run a Capital reading group (it's best in groups as we're seeing here!) I should invite a classically trained liberal economics graduate every 5th session or so to hone the fledgling cutting edges on complete nonsense arguments
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
the prisoners dilemma…( throwing papers up into the air, mouth agape in disbelief as they artfully flutter down ) hes got us... (putting hands on hips) hes got us dead to rights
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:57
|
|
|
and from the other endBillsPhoenix posted:It's literally the same entropy causing global warming heat causes entropy, but entropy does not cause heat. our guy is beautifully backwards once again
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 21:58
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:You can reject this, I've already included the quotes from Marx. you've presented a single line that mentions proportion, attributed to just a name; no source, no chapter, no context. i won't make your arguments for you, dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
Brain Candy posted:and from the other end Look, the globe is just warming all on its own due to completely natural causes. Has nothing to do with my idiotic ideology of rapacious greed predicated on limitless growth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Anyhow, this has run its course, those comments aren't trolls. Sraffa has a whole book about it, Keen has a shorter paper, I obviously can't prove it out in a couple posts. do you imagine “fighting the good fight” to be looking for inconsistencies in karl marx’s diction
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
"Our friend, Moneybags" - Karl Marx i've laid bare marx's fundamental friendship with, and allegiance to, the capital class, and from this we might reasonably surmise that he aims to propagandize on its behalf. the quote's source and context is irrelevant; my point stands, plain as day in those words that you can see right there for yourself
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 22:27
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Anyhow, this has run its course, those comments aren't trolls. Sraffa has a whole book about it, Keen has a shorter paper, I obviously can't prove it out in a couple posts. bro you invented anti-coats
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:you've presented a single line that mentions proportion, attributed to just a name; no source, no chapter, no context. he actually did several pages ago, it's this: "It has to be postulated that the use value of the machine significantly greater than its value; that its devaluation in the service of production is not proportional to its increasing effect on production." -Karl Marx which is to say that he is just deliberately confusing use-value and value. obviously he can't trot the quote back out too frequently or it'd be too obvious what he was doing. although i'm going to use it and my own comment earlier: Ferrinus posted:if you're curious, marx goes into depth on the ramifications of having a shorter production cycle in volume 2 as a springboard to go into a bit more depth on this, because once you take time into account the "increasing effect on production" of a machine, separate from that machine's devaluation, can have funny effects on commodities and the market. so: let's say the rate of surplus value is just 1/1, e.g. any v i invest just spawns an identically-sized s. i'm making widgets that require $75 of constant capital and $25 variable capital to make, such that their final value is 75 + 25 + 25 = 125. i need a $750 dollar machine to actually make them, and my machine the Mk. I, can (with supervisory labor) stamp out ten widgets before breaking down and needing to be replaced. so, every year, i take my $1000 of capital, buy a $750 mk.I, buy $250 worth of labor, and end the year with $1250 realized value. my rate of profit is a cool 25%. if i'm extremely abstemious and save all my profit, i can buy a second mk.I in four years the mk.II comes out. it's a $1150 dollar machine which works five times as fast, and so needs only one fifth as many working days to run, which means it makes $115c + $5v commodities whose final value is 115 + 5 + 5 = 125. if i bought one and used it until it broke down, i'd still get $1250 worth of commodities to sale, but off a $1200 investment. wow, that's not even any cheaper than the original cost of widgets were, and it requires more total capital investment from me, such that my rate of profit is now a pathetic 4.2%. ...but wait. the mkII works five times as fast, which means, off my starting $1000, i can buy, run down, sell off all the proceeds of, and buy anew a fresh mk.II five times per year rather than once. so at the end of the year, my $1000 capital has generated a 21% total profit! ...that's still not as good as before. but it's close! so you can see that, on the one hand, if i were to massage the numbers on the mk.II a bit (slightly more V relative to C, maybe the total of C and V is actually below 125, etc), then even though the rate of profit on the same commodity would have gotten worse for me, the yearly rate of profit is still better, and it'd behoove me to buy the new machine. or, even with the less efficient mk.II as is, the sheer fact that i can now make five times as many widgets as all of my competitors means that i could maybe slash their price a little further, dominate the entire market, then raise the price once all my competitors are gone, etc. and this ability to call the shots through sheer volume goes some way to explaining how it is that more machinery-intensive capitals can push around more labor-intensive capitals and fight to equalize the rate of profit, though not necessarily perfectly
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:gently caress off, anti-coat guy. he's like a grain of sand in an oyster
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 23:00
|
|
|
Zodium posted:he's like a grain of sand in an oyster lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
at what point of my marxist education do I get to learn how to make savage burns?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 23:32
|
|
|
Halser posted:at what point of my marxist education do I get to learn how to make savage burns? You're learning that on SA, Marx is giving you the tools you need to take it to the next level
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
too bad deleuze is dead he'd have a field day with anticoats
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
Halser posted:at what point of my marxist education do I get to learn how to make savage burns? if that's what you're in it for, you're not going to get anything out of it
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 00:34
|
|
|
Halser posted:at what point of my marxist education do I get to learn how to make savage burns? it's part of the tradition, comes up organically
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:he actually did several pages ago, it's this: I saw, I just wanted to get him to acknowledge that the line was from the grundrisse, and then post the humongous paragraphs before and after, which I guarantee he skipped. In fact, I don't for a moment think he got the line straight from the grundrisse; guarantee you bill got it thirdhand via steve keen, who was also very confused by it and proceeded to write some very silly things on that basis
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 01:01
|
|