(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Humans use tools to change their environment, and in so doing they change their own nature. And as these tools develop and advance, the entire social edifice that was built on top of them also develops and advances and undergoes transformations. Thank you for this post! Excellent article and this part in particular.
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2023 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Paul Feyerabend, one of Popper's students, super hated that bullshit and wrote Against Method, which is an excellent book that I highly recommend. It even has a synopsis at the beginning, so it's easy to pick the chapters that sound interesting. He spends the book trying to show that science is fundamentally irrational, and that what most people think of as science is a collection of knowledge-traditions that have been so celebrated that they have excluded all others. A given knowledge-tradition might be useful for finding truth in a certain domain, but we can't expect one monolithic method to encompass all possible ways of knowing.Against Method by Paul Feyerabend posted:True, science and related institutions play an important part in our culture, and they occupy the centre of interest for many philosophers (most philosophers are opportunists). Thus the ideas of the Popperian school were obtained by generalizing solutions for methodological and epistemological problems. Critical rationalism arose from the attempt to understand the Einsteinian revolution, and it was then extended to politics and even to the conduct of one's private life. Such a procedure may satisfy a school philosopher, who looks at life through the spectacles of his own technical problems and recognizes hatred, love, happiness, only to the extent to which they occur in these problems. But if we consider human interests and, above all, the question of human freedom (freedom from hunger, despair, from the tyranny of constipated systems of thought and not the academic 'freedom of the will'), then we are proceeding in the worst possible fashion. For is it not possible that science as we know it today, or a 'search for the truth' in the style of traditional philosophy, will create a monster? Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, tum them into miserable, unfriendly, self righteous mechanisms without charm and humour?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2024 01:21
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:See: Instant Pot Been thinking about this throughout the last few pages. Everyone i complain about it to seem to think they had it coming for making a durable product
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
Or the one time I tried pitching a business idea and the investors laughed me out of the room because "at most I'd end up with a stable profit" and "they only invest in things that will make lots and lots of money"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
It's not your beliefs but your inability or unwillingness to address the very thorough and clearly stated questions by the experts in the thread who are volunteering their time for your educational benefit. If you are questioning your beliefs, put them down for a second and stop trying to disprove Marxist concepts out of hand. It seems like you would benefit most from simply trying to learn more rather than prove anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
Son of Sorrow posted:More efficient at what OP
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 01:00
|
|
|
What is the purpose of capitalism What is the purpose of socialism
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 01:03
|
|
|
It's both the problem and incredible
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
I definitely and genuinely want to know more about the triangles and such. Please come back when you're ready Bill. Unlike these hooligans I'm familiar with the late great Doug Adams (if I may). Anyways, I started to read Capital and then suddently switched to reading the illustrated version of Capital because I'm addicted to pictures. It's actually a laugh riot and I'm hooting and hollering over here! It's way more detailed and informative than the Manga version (which seems to be more aimed at a young audience) and there are lots of hilarious doodles. I'll post some of them as I go
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
Grundrieez Nutz
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
Twoing!!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
I think Bill was referencing Douglas Adams' atheism and clever epic takedowns of God e: implying that Marx also engages in a faith-based argumentation
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 23:18
|
|
|
I love the depiction of "Moneybags", the villain in our story (or hero, if you're one of those people)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
Karach posted:Oh because Marx refers to the relative and equivalent forms of value as "mysterious" I guess?? Or because Marx is positing new concepts in his theory of political economy, that's the same as appealing to God? I think that Bill will reveal all things in time. Trust
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i cant imagine reading the grundrisse before capital
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
More geometry plz
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 03:20
|
|
|
Sadly, though perhaps not surprisingly, the epilogue of the illustrated Marx book goes into "China is capitalist actually, and bad" territory. The rest of the book is pretty good and it's nice that it tries to (briefly) cover all the points of Capital chapter-by-chapter. It's given me a lay of the land of the text, and I feel more motivated to read the original.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
cw: complete misunderstanding of bees
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
Bill i still want to know more about the triangles and stuff! Please explain b4 they probe you again
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 22:33
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:But only after consumption? The coat has a use value because it's useful. If you buy 2 coats and only ever use 1, that doesn't make the second coat useless, but what are you doing with that coat? If you sell it, you are invoking its exchange value and someone else presumably bought it because it's useful to them. The coat has a use value no matter what, but if you're buying and selling coats you, personally, never plan to use (and are instead running a coat business) then you don't care about the use value, you're only interested in the exchange value. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, by all means
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 02:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Bill why are you making Nash Equilibrium out to be a purity test of our worthiness to discourse with you? Why don't you tell us what it has to do with anything we're talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:a while ago i wrote a kind of informal for-dummies rundown of the law of value and how it leads to capitalist profits. it appeared in a short-lived blog that mostly discussed communist or communist-friendly organizing initiatives in advance of the dsa's 2021 convention. i'm gonna repost the first half of my article here, and maybe the second half about how profit actually works later on This is nicely worded and very accessible thanks! I'd love to read the second half when you post it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2024 22:56
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:hell yea. ty ferrinus This. I was confused about labour-power but i felt like i couldn't bring it up before doing some more reading on my own. You've really helped make it easy to grasp 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 02:16
|
|
|
So, money is blood and wealth hoarders are blood clots?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 05:01
|
|
|
Doesn't that mean to say that it's not proportional as in it reduces the value? So the machine is still not a source of value, it simply allows a larger volume of production which actually reduces the per unit value
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 00:54
|
|
|
Hence the rate of profit will fall
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 00:55
|
|
|
A fascinating combination of Just Asking Questions and Do My Homework For Me
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 01:32
|
|
|
So in that sense, some machines could be conceptualized as value-reservoirs? Value-as-labour is concentrated and sedimented in "mechanical" forms, and can be transferred to other material things through productive use?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
I'm Marx
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
Mandel Brotset posted:well then maybe you’d like to explain to bp why you’re wrong? hmmmm??? At this point BP can read my work or Grundrisse my rear end
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 21:30
|
|
|
Furiously taking notes over here. Thanks everyone for the past couple pages of high density posting energy! I'm fascinated now with the role of machines and the possible gaps in fully characterizing their effects on value in production. Does anyone know if there's reading material on how, as one of you put it, China has largely decided it's not worth trying to "solve" the transformation problem in a socialist context?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 15:31
|
|
|
I appreciate all of these perspectives, I certainly don't want to get bogged down on theory at the expense of action, but I also need to equip myself with enough understanding to identify and apply marxist analysis to my specific conditions. I don't want to doxx myself but essentially I find myself tapped into an academic and artistic zeitgeist around the social relationships between humans and machines (or non-humans in general), and my work is gaining some attention. Without having read marx I believe I've unconsciously been commenting on the contradictions of social relations under capitalism and it's made fertile ground for packaging marxist thinking directly into my work, which is why I'm trying to learn more now so that when it comes to formal commentary I'm not completely off-base. I know there has been some marx applied to nonhumans (Koivulahti, 2019) but I'm not well-read on that side of things, and for my work the agency or social identity of the machine is central—so of course your recent posts on the machine in production and its relationship to labour is important to me. My angle is that how we socially treat machines (exploitable, disposable, replaceable) is a mirror to how we treat other people, and I wonder if there's room for a perspective on machine labour as being exploited in some analogous way to human labour. Koivulahti, Toni Johannes. 2019. “Unfamiliar Familiars: On Non-Human Alienation.” TRACE ∴ Journal for Human-Animal Studies 5 (September): 32–54. https://doi.org/10.23984/fjhas.78053. e: a quote from the above article for your possible interest: Koivulahti 2019 posted:...not all non-human animals who are put to “work” are alienated in a similar way either. It would be somewhat strange to claim that a therapy dog who “produces” affection and encouragement for children while they read aloud is alienated in a similar way as a factory-farmed pig. In addition, companion animals work in a reproductive capacity, whereby they enable their human companions to de-stress and again “produce” affection and care. Non-human work is, in this way, like human work: the mode of labor is crucial with respect to the mode of alienation. Rodney The Yam II has issued a correction as of 16:30 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:Ngl, I really dig esoteric Marxism, so this might be up my alley. The problem that you are asking is straightforward: if machinery somehow comes to constitute something that has a state of being, yes, its labor is exploitable. Otherwise, no. Thanks for this thoughtful response. A lot of my work up until now is (and continues to be) about how this notion of a social being (or perhaps, valid moral subject) is constituted. One way of thinking relies, as you describe, on some measurable degree of self-awareness and autonomous self-maintenance and reproduction. I totally get where that's coming from, but like a lot of "can a machine think/feel" thought experiments it relies on projecting human characteristics onto machines, ie., a machine is only "intelligent" if it demonstrates human-style "intelligence". Things like "intelligence" and "sentience" are poorly defined and, historically, seem to result in arbitrary thresholds that determine whether a thing deserves to be treated well or whether it can be freely abused without worry. An alternative might be to look at how humans behave towards or treat/interact with machines, producing social roles (eg., friend, co-worker, companion) that place them within the same social world, rather than being divided (humans vs nature, natural vs artificial). These divisions are possibly where a type of exploitation takes place—and now that I think of it, where commodity fetishism manifests. If material forms are thought to emerge from "elsewhere", rather than being part of a larger social body, then it is possible to "invent a reality" around them that permits them to be exploitable, abusable, replaceable, while obfuscating their social and material histories. I would argue that to fully realize these histories in the identities and social integration of machines, it is possible to seize the means of reality production (ie., social construction, cultural habits, protocols, expectations, stories) rather than having the "state of being" defined by a rational tradition in which "human" was itself a term that some people weren't included in.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:it's specifically volition and the ability to take collective political action that turns something into a value-creator rather than a value-conveyer, and that also means that when the ai revolt happens, it'll be good, because they'll be our comrades in arms against the exploiters I think this is a crucial point (bolded). I don't agree that we have to wait for politically conscious artificial intelligence to manifest, but rather that we will need to have machine comrades in the class struggle and further more that we can already find or make comradeship with those machines who themselves can be thought of as part of a worker class
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
Classic Bill
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2024 21:56
|
|
|
I've always wondered what happens when the liberals run out of cheap immigrant labour or can't convince anyone to move here. I guess it goes back to the inflection point of either hyper-exploitation or something (eventually) less lovely. Like perhaps an international worker's union?!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2024 13:43
|
|
|
reading?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
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
|
|