(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
BillsPhoenix posted:If something can have a use value, then something without a use value must exist of course. The bit started when coming up with the idea of making something without use-value, which another thing entirely. but yes, use-value can be lost, as well as recuperated. In more esoteric Marxism, it can be imbued, though this is waaaaaaaay ahead here
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Imbue Coat of Negative Use-Value [legendary] +2?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
and talking about esoteric concepts this thread is warming up properly to eventually receive the hermetic marxist idea of anti-commodity
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
I think it is very important as just a baseline of understanding to establish that utilitarianism is dumb as poo poo and on top of being dumb as poo poo it is also completely impractical. It shares this with Nozick's ideas, which are also dumb as poo poo and completely impractical. Even if you fail to see why these ideas are dumb as poo poo, ask yourself how one would go about implementing any of it to inform real world actions, especially on the level of a government or society. If you've absorbed even a bit of materialist thinking you should quickly run into a plethora of practical problems that have no answers. This impracticality alone would be enough to make these philosophical ideas dumb as poo poo because the point of thinking really hard isn't to build elaborate cloud castles in your mind, but to change the world for the better. So anyway my point is, forget utilitarianism and kill the whole dumb idea dead in your mind. Then approach the concepts of use value in Marxism absent all that dumb baggage. So bombs have a use value. That use value is exploding some poo poo and being able to credibly threaten to explode some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
yeah use-value can't be "negative" because use-value isn't quantitative in the first place. something either satisfies a function or it doesn't. that's actually the problem with the term "anti-coat". it sounds like something that somehow cancels out or inverts a coat, like it saps the warmth that wearing a coat normally affords you or something. but that's stupid. many things just happen not to be usable as a coat. the classic example of the thing-without-use-value is the "mud pie", which is not an anti-pie. it's just a blob of mud or poo poo or whatever that no one wants and hence no one will buy from you
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 03:38
|
|
|
I think the distinction to be made here is that "explosives" very obviously have a use value, in the same way that a [sledge]hammer can be used to take down a wall to clear for the building of something else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 03:56
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:douglas dowd (who is a veblenist rather than a marxist) had an interesting point of military goods/military keynesianism being an economic dead end because while building bombs et al themselves will have an economic growth effect, the bombs themselves dont contribute to future economic growth unlike say a school or a highway Wouldn't this only be true in a closed system, though? Whereas, as dismal as it is to contemplate, in an open one their possession and use is zero-sum but effective for the purpose of putting some other poor bastard on the negative end of the transaction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 07:11
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:yeah use-value can't be "negative" because use-value isn't quantitative in the first place. something either satisfies a function or it doesn't. it's a weird attachment to the framing of an explanation instead of what it's trying to explain. If you're getting to really esoteric thought exercises like "anti use values" then the actual point of the concept being described has been lost for a while. Halser has issued a correction as of 07:51 on Apr 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 07:49
|
|
|
ive been thinking really hard about whether or not its possible for something with zero potential use value to exist in a thermodynamically consistent universe since the subject was first brought up and i havent been able to come up with anything. if it exists, then it can be used for something
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 11:27
|
|
|
In the most general sense, being a thing is already "useful" inasmuch as embeddedness/interaction already implies some kind of participation in system dynamics. Depends how you frame it though, if you're only interested in "useful to humans" then it requires you to ask a human being their opinion
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 13:14
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:ive been thinking really hard about whether or not its possible for something with zero potential use value to exist in a thermodynamically consistent universe since the subject was first brought up and i havent been able to come up with anything. if it exists, then it can be used for something yes properly speaking even a poo poo sandwich can be repurposed as fertilizer or what have you. on the other hand, will anyone buy one off you, rather than just buying some fertilizer? no it IS interesting how use-values both do and don't physically inhere in things. marx said that discovering them is "the work of history", and that covers stuff like people discovering that bat guano can be used to concoct explosives and so is much more useful than previously assumed. but something only has a de facto a use-value if it had particular physical properties AND exists in a social and historical context in which people are aware of and prepared to leverage those properties for some advantage
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
Which also ties to how the labor theory of value is a massive intellectual enterprise that we honestly just finished the basic levels forscary ghost dog posted:ive been thinking really hard about whether or not its possible for something with zero potential use value to exist in a thermodynamically consistent universe since the subject was first brought up and i havent been able to come up with anything. if it exists, then it can be used for something which ties with this: the cool far-out-there Marxist conceptualists (whose work is more akin to sci-fi than theorycraft) propose that the definite solution to the material value question is energy, as it is an universal and absolute physical quantitative. It's definitely possible to calculate all energy costs in input/output for economic activity and thus have pricing and whatnot, so currency can be anchored in direct allotments of it. The neat thing about that is that allows (iirc) the best appreciation of use-value for anything into a practical reference that can also be exchange-value, so nothing is actually "useless", it just requires labor to be made into something else
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:AND exists in a social and historical context in which people are aware of and prepared to leverage those properties for some advantage which is the other half of the question: the social and historical character of value is just as (if not more) important than the material question. It is always rooted in physicality, but it is the social factor that determines forms and modes of value expression.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
you can also sell bombs!!dead gay comedy forums posted:Which also ties to how the labor theory of value is a massive intellectual enterprise that we honestly just finished the basic levels for thermodynamic marxism…. interesting…..
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:Which also ties to how the labor theory of value is a massive intellectual enterprise that we honestly just finished the basic levels for thats pretty much my train of thought. if x is the smallest unit of existence from which all matter and energy is constructed, and its quantity is anything other than zero, then x has a use-value
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 15:59
|
|
|
Does Marxism point to the big bang or a simulation or both or something else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 02:05
|
|
|
marxism points forward, preferably the economy didn't exist back then anyways
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
Bald Stalin posted:Does Marxism point to the big bang or a simulation or both or something else? The Big Bang was the revolution that began the universe: matter seizing the means of production.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 02:23
|
|
|
Bald Stalin posted:Does Marxism point to the big bang or a simulation or both or something else? marxism is only applicable to human behavior and i suppose some crows
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 04:40
|
|
|
Bald Stalin posted:Does Marxism point to the big bang or a simulation or both or something else? Something else, i would say
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 05:57
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:Something else, i would say At the beginning there was only Hegel. Marx cut his balls off. They fell into the ocean and became Lenin and Stalin. The rest is history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:At the beginning there was only Hegel. Marx cut his balls off. They fell into the ocean and became Lenin and Stalin. The rest is history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
Bald Stalin posted:Does Marxism point to the big bang or a simulation or both or something else? Yes!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:Which also ties to how the labor theory of value is a massive intellectual enterprise that we honestly just finished the basic levels for free energy really and this is why fossil fuels make our current absurd economic system possible and we are hitting interesting times as they get depleted
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 03:17
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:At the beginning there was only Hegel. Marx cut his balls off. They fell into the ocean and became Lenin and Stalin. The rest is history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 03:44
|
|
|
Flournival Dixon posted:marxism points forward, preferably
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 04:00
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:At the beginning there was only Hegel. Marx cut his balls off. They fell into the ocean and became Lenin and Stalin. The rest is history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 04:33
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:At the beginning there was only Hegel. Marx cut his balls off. They fell into the ocean and became Lenin and Stalin. The rest is history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I think it is very important as just a baseline of understanding to establish that utilitarianism is dumb as poo poo and on top of being dumb as poo poo it is also completely impractical. It shares this with Nozick's ideas, which are also dumb as poo poo and completely impractical. lol just lol. even at the most base formulation of totally unreflective hedonism, the telos of a dictatorship of the proletariat is to maximize the happiness of the many. in terms of developed material examples, china must have figured it out pretty good because a socialist economy needs to concern itself with production to fulfill needs and wants, that is use values, without doing it through the middleman of commodification. that's maximizing use value, that's doing society level hedonistic calculus. I would contend that the soviet union botching this calculation, producing more and better nukes than anyone else, sucking up resources and energies that could provide use to people in so doing, is a large part of the reason the ussr is no more and we are living in the chinese century utilitarianism is an ethical theory not an economic one. it's not incompatible with marxism and this is a really weird thing to be aggressively wrong about
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 02:31
|
|
|
It's a theory of distributive justice. Hmm I wonder if that might be related to economics, which is all about how to distribute scarce resources somehow? Hmmm...
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 09:15
|
|
|
so like... if you need something, you should get it, and if you can do something to help, you should do it...
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 13:09
|
|
|
my dad posted:Imbue Coat of Negative Use-Value [legendary] +2? skipped ahead 20 pages and people are still talking about the Anti-Coat, gdi
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 13:13
|
|
|
by the way, it would be a pair of pants that absorb water. that's the antithesis of a coat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 13:14
|
|
|
Pepe Silvia Browne posted:skipped ahead 20 pages and people are still talking about the Anti-Coat, gdi No.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 13:15
|
|
|
Pepe Silvia Browne posted:by the way, it would be a pair of pants that absorb water. that's the antithesis of a coat. you shouldn't have skipped ahead
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 13:35
|
|
|
Zodium posted:you shouldn't have skipped ahead this has never once been true in the history of forums
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 13:37
|
|
|
Pepe Silvia Browne posted:this has never once been true in the history of forums Zodium posted:you shouldn't have skipped ahead is this dialectics?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 13:39
|
|
|
double nine posted:is this dialectics? 🦋
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 14:12
|
|
|
no you missed some good rear end posts, basically just go back and only read the long ones
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
hubris.height posted:no you missed some good rear end posts, basically just go back and only read Capital
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 14:55
|
|