(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
again while the effort is admirable, don't for a second consider that you are being engaged seriously and in earnest, there's no principle of charity that must be abided here
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
Aeolius posted: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 steve dull
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 01:46
|
|
|
i actually have read keen, although it was a long time ago and before i actually knew anything about marx. specifically i went through Debunking Economics, which was a pretty fun read but whose last anti-marx chapter went (at the time) over my head. now i recall it specifically arguing that machines were a source of value in their own right alongside human labor, and from context i assume keen's argument was based on precisely the same misunderstanding that billsphoenix pretends not to see each time it's explained to him
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
BP is right and the thread lacks the fortitude and moral clarity to accept it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
I want to believe you both but this thing keeps happening where no actual argument is made just alluded to And also seems to be primarily that the first volume of capital failed to address things discussed in the second volume of capital Harold Fjord has issued a correction as of 17:38 on Mar 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
drat is that why theres more than one volume
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I want to believe you both but this thing keeps happening where no actual argument is made just alluded to not even. the quote that billsphoenix pretended to misread is from the pile of notes marx took before writing capital proper. volume 2 has a lot of interesting extension and complication of the stuff in 1 but the actual fulcrum here is a bog-standard confusion between use value and exchange value
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
Son of Sorrow posted:BP is right and the thread lacks the fortitude and moral clarity to accept it. BillsPhoenix posted:Lots of pro trump self proclaimed Marxists though lol. well, broken clocks and all
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 23:51
|
|
|
i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 00:09
|
|
|
Al! posted:i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
Al! posted:i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 00:14
|
|
|
Al! posted:i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat [MARX] i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 01:34
|
|
|
Al! posted:i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 01:36
|
|
|
Al! posted:i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 01:59
|
|
|
Al! posted:i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 02:50
|
|
|
Al! posted:i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 06:58
|
|
|
Alright I'm finally sitting down and reading Volume 1. So far I'm into Chapter 3, Money. This thread has been elucidating and really helps me understand the material. Also having some idea of the points Marx is building up to helps me understand these early more abstract chapters. after reading so much about coats, Bill's anti-coat was worth a good laugh. Deadly Ham Sandwich has issued a correction as of 11:54 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 07:20
|
|
|
i miss bill
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 07:43
|
|
|
Al! posted:i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 14:03
|
|
|
work on your aim
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 14:03
|
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:Alright I'm finally sitting down and reading Volume 1. So far I'm into Chapter 3, Money. This thread has been elucidating and really helps me understand the material. Also having some idea of the points Marx is building up to helps me understand these early more abstract chapters. We know more about the origins of money now than Marx did at the time, thanks to cuneiform tablets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 15:52
|
|
|
Al! posted:i put on my anti-coat and wizard hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 02:25
|
|
|
anyway trump ftw
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 02:33
|
|
|
lumpentroll posted:anyway trump ftw many volks are saying this
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 03:07
|
|
|
lumpentroll posted:anyway trump ftw This is what Marx calls praxis
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 03:09
|
|
|
i was at my weekly social with the local fash groups and they said that too
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 03:11
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I feel like you're responding to a lot of stuff that might be tangentially related to what I posted but isn't actually in my post. I didn't mention Africa, or "making them stop" or Ukraine or anything. I'm happy to respond to you but I'm not going to just wildly shoot sentences out there if I don't know what I'm actually responding to. Skull.gif in the DoomEcon thread made me think of the comparative wealth inequality of France vs now. Given how much money has to go into an American worker, how would we manage that level of inequality? Is it even possible in the west without basically having to return to similar levels of tech or basically turning into a pure extraction economy that just buys everything from places like China to sidestep the lack of willingness to invest in the production of the tools themselves?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 04:59
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Skull.gif in the DoomEcon thread made me think of the comparative wealth inequality of France vs now. Given how much money has to go into an American worker, how would we manage that level of inequality? Is it even possible in the west without basically having to return to similar levels of tech or basically turning into a pure extraction economy that just buys everything from places like China to sidestep the lack of willingness to invest in the production of the tools themselves? yeah i mean that basically tracks. people that would be on an assembly line with stable hours, benefits, social life, community, are instead dragged into the ubersphere to serve their betters that hollowing-out is pretty much why we'll be conquered, eventually
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 05:28
|
|
|
The economic history of Latin America is an excellent reference for the subject, imho Laissez-faire took the southern continent by storm, as almost all revolutionary leadership was informed by liberalism. The idea of comparative advantages and commercial specialization essentially turned the former colonies of Spain and Portugal into subordinate economies for the UK, France, USA, Belgium and later, Italy and Germany. The latifundia slaveowners of Brazil defended just that, very much like the ones in Alabama or Mississippi: why bother with industry when we can buy more and cheaper from Europe? As a simple fact demonstrated by the American Civil War, turns out that internal forces of production matter for many different reasons, including as a principle of sovereignty. This one has been the battle often argued by Latin American Marxists about why revolutionary organization is necessary for a profound process of industrialization
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
how many cases of capital migrating back to places its flown from are there? that it's cheaper to build new factories and that labor will be cheaper in places that don't yet have factories seems like it would be a constant until the world is basically completely industrialized. just over the course of my life I've seen production move from honduras to china to vietnam and fake korea
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:that it's cheaper to build new factories and that labor will be cheaper in places that don't yet have factories seems like it would be a constant until the world is basically completely industrialized. IIRC there has never been a reversal of major industrial cycle, but nothing suggests it would be impossible to do so. It's not like it is a missed historical event or anything, it is about organizing material production forces and social relations. See Russia, for example: Ukraine jolted the legacy structures of the Soviet Union -- the remainder of those industrial factors -- into action and it was enough to put the Russian economy into complete disregard of economic sanctions. The thing is, of course, that the industrialization of the USSR/China/Yugoslavia/etc and the industrialization cycles of Western countries (+ Japan sort of) were very different processes in terms of industrial/productive relations, where the latter was based on capitalist expansion and value profit, while the former was based on development of material production forces. The difference is very important and can be observed on, among other things, the attempt the USA is having with building up its domestic semiconductor capacity. The USA is strongarming/leveraging/cajoling multinational companies that were derivate results of that very same process of capital flight, but is getting swamped with many, many different complaints and difficulties -- neoliberal brain got so far that they think that their own economy works like the textbook model; the multinational just has to plop down the factory in the country and out comes the goods. There's no consideration that, for example, South Korea is hell for trade unionism (which obviously impact wages and overall labor costs). There's plenty more factors of course, but the gist is that while private interest can have the money, it cannot rebuild social circumstances that made industrial development interesting for itself in the first place. The state, however, couldn't care less for that - not profitable enough for a capitalist often means it can work just fine in 9 out of 10 circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
Anybody happen to know what taxes were like in the USSR in the 1930s? Or the late 40s or early 50s?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 14:23
|
|
|
has there been any good marxist hypotheses on the particular nature of human society's first class conflict? im under the sourceless impression that it was forager-cultivator vs pillager-rancher, but im not sure if im just projecting the agrarian-pastoralist conflict back in time inappropriately. if there's no good info on a first/original class conflict, what would be the oldest class conflict(s) that had been identified and described by marxist history?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
stumblebum posted:has there been any good marxist hypotheses on the particular nature of human society's first class conflict? im under the sourceless impression that it was forager-cultivator vs pillager-rancher, but im not sure if im just projecting the agrarian-pastoralist conflict back in time inappropriately. if there's no good info on a first/original class conflict, what would be the oldest class conflict(s) that had been identified and described by marxist history? engels (origin of the family) and federici (caliban and the witch) would argue it was the subjugation of women that enabled private property to really take off
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 17:25
|
|
|
Mandel Brotset posted:engels (origin of the family) and federici (caliban and the witch) would argue it was the subjugation of women that enabled private property to really take off I've not read either (but I will now!), so is there a concise reason for why the subjection of women was the opening shot? Like, is it simply that masculine-skewed humans tend to be stronger on average than feminine-skewed humans? Forgive the weird terminology, trying to be inclusive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
stumblebum posted:has there been any good marxist hypotheses on the particular nature of human society's first class conflict? im under the sourceless impression that it was forager-cultivator vs pillager-rancher, but im not sure if im just projecting the agrarian-pastoralist conflict back in time inappropriately. if there's no good info on a first/original class conflict, what would be the oldest class conflict(s) that had been identified and described by marxist history? how did complex/class society emerge is basically the core question of the entire field of anthropological archaeology
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:I've not read either (but I will now!), so is there a concise reason for why the subjection of women was the opening shot? Like, is it simply that masculine-skewed humans tend to be stronger on average than feminine-skewed humans? Forgive the weird terminology, trying to be inclusive. IIRC Engels argued that the development of productive forces with agriculture skewed power dynamics in favor of men, which contradicted the matrilineal inheritance/ownership existing in this stage of society. This necessitated a change in how families were organized to shift power towards men, and to allow for patrilineal ownership, men also had to possess women as part of their property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:I've not read either (but I will now!), so is there a concise reason for why the subjection of women was the opening shot? Like, is it simply that masculine-skewed humans tend to be stronger on average than feminine-skewed humans? Forgive the weird terminology, trying to be inclusive. Just to be clear that this isn't a dig at you: nah, that's the "naturalist" version that conveniently obfuscates the far more complex processes involved. Friedrich Engels, Origins of the Family, Property and the State, Chapter 2: posted:Once it had passed into the private possession of families and there rapidly begun to augment, this wealth dealt a severe blow to the society founded on pairing marriage and the matriarchal gens. Pairing marriage had brought a new element into the family. By the side of the natural mother of the child it placed its natural and attested father, with a better warrant of paternity, probably, than that of many a “father” today. According to the division of labor within the family at that time, it was the man’s part to obtain food and the instruments of labor necessary for the purpose. He therefore also owned the instruments of labor, and in the event of husband and wife separating, he took them with him, just as she retained her household goods. Therefore, according to the social custom of the time, the man was also the owner of the new source of subsistence, the cattle, and later of the new instruments of labor, the slaves. But according to the custom of the same society, his children could not inherit from him. For as regards inheritance, the position was as follows: According to Engels and the authors he researched (plus Marx own very late research on the topic), the development of the pairing marriage happened within communalism, which was a great matriarchal advance by which the women chose exclusive relations to the men she preferred and with the innovation of allowing it to be outside the familial/communal bonds, with very important social (and biological) benefits. When animal husbandry and agriculture come into play, however, the Antiquity value multiplier from labor activity changes everything: larger families means more farming and husbandry, which means greater wealth to the family and household. quote:Thus, on the one hand, in proportion as wealth increased, it made the man’s position in the family more important than the woman’s, and on the other hand created an impulse to exploit this strengthened position in order to overthrow, in favor of his children, the traditional order of inheritance. This, however, was impossible so long as descent was reckoned according to mother-right. Mother-right, therefore, had to be overthrown, and overthrown it was. This was by no means so difficult as it looks to us today. For this revolution – one of the most decisive ever experienced by humanity – could take place without disturbing a single one of the living members of a gens. All could remain as they were. A simple decree sufficed that in the future the offspring of the male members should remain within the gens, but that of the female should be excluded by being transferred to the gens of their father. The reckoning of descent in the female line and the matriarchal law of inheritance were thereby overthrown, and the male line of descent and the paternal law of inheritance were substituted for them. As to how and when this revolution took place among civilized peoples, we have no knowledge. It falls entirely within prehistoric times. But that it did take place is more than sufficiently proved by the abundant traces of mother-right which have been collected, particularly by Bachofen. The matriarch, the house-ruler, had the social ownership of her home and its directly related means of production, while man as laborer/warrior had the tools of his craft and/or slaves he might have acquired: these allow for a much greater degree of wealth production. quote:[...]Of eight Missouri tribes, six observe the male line of descent and inheritance, two still observe the female. Among the Shawnees, Miamis and Delawares the custom has grown up of giving the children a gentile name of their father's gens in order to transfer them into it, thus enabling them to inherit from him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State is such a pro read. I've always enjoyed this little bit of sarcasm in itquote:Lately it has become fashionable to deny the existence of this initial stage [promiscuous sexual relations, non-monogamous households and communities -T] in human sexual life. Humanity must be spared this “shame.” It is pointed out that all direct proof of such a stage is lacking, and particular appeal is made to the evidence from the rest of the animal world; for, even among animals, according to the numerous facts collected by Letourneau (L'évolution du mariage et de la famille, 1888), complete promiscuity in sexual intercourse marks a low stage of development. But the only conclusion I can draw from all these facts, so far as man and his primitive conditions of life are concerned, is that they prove nothing whatever. That vertebrates mate together for a considerable period is sufficiently explained by physiological causes – in the case of birds, for example, by the female’s need of help during the brooding period; examples of faithful monogamy among birds prove nothing about man, for the simple reason that men are not descended from birds. And if strict monogamy is the height of all virtue, then the palm must go to the tapeworm, which has a complete set of male and female sexual organs in each of its 50-200 proglottides, or sections, and spends its whole life copulating in all its sections with itself. Tsitsikovas has issued a correction as of 04:38 on Mar 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 19:58
|
|
