Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
(Thread IKs: dead gay comedy forums)
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
mods are retarded pedophiles

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
i used to laugh at the idea of "a liberal was mean to me so now i'm a racist", but flavius' behaviour has convinced me that the mods are in fact retarded pedophiles

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
An argument for socialism from marginal theory of value and negative externalities

Marginal theory of value: holds that the value of goods and services can only be determined by seeing what price they sell for on a market, as opposed to a labour theory of value which holds that goods and services have intrinsic value based on the socially necessary labour time to produce them.

Negative externalities: a market failure whereby some of the cost of production or consumption is not borne by the market actors, but by some other part of society not involved in the market transaction. For example: pollution from burning fossil fuels, sound pollution causing discomfort, smoking causing secondary lung cancer, diseases becoming resistant to drugs after overuse in factory farms.

The damages incurred by a negative externality are often judged based on market costs to fix the problem, but what about when the damage exists purely subjectively? For example, psychological damage. If a majority of members of society decided that the mere act of being "too wealthy" was psychologically damaging, and the value they placed on their psychological health was greater than the collective wealth of the world's billionaires, then there would be a case for compensating society with the wealth of the world's billionaires, and for taxing billionaires out of existence, in order to prevent further damage.

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

indigi posted:

semi related but how to libertarians/ancaps square negative externalities with the NAP? seems impossible from a logic standpoint

they usually say that private courts will decide on whether damages occur and what costs should be paid

of course if one party insist on using a particular private court (owned by a friend from college) while the other party is choking to death from ongoing pollution, there might be a slight imbalance in power, but at least no one was coerced into paying taxes to have a government set up its own judicial system

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
it's a problem with libertarianism they've known about for decades

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuYt6X2g0cY

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Ferrinus posted:

actually that is a misstatement/oversimplification of the labor theory of value. the idea that goods and services have an INTRINSIC value is commodity fetishism. in reality value is socially determined and validated, only truly making itself felt in the moment of exchange (before which it can only be guessed at by producers). this is why marx occasionally referred to value as "spectral" or other such words

the decisive example here appears early in capital when marx reminds us that if, across all society, weavers produced far more linen than people wanted to buy, the glut of linen would result in all linen having a proportionately lower value across the board despite each individual bolt having been woven put of C units of materials and over V socially-average hours. it is as if all weavers actually did extra, socially unnecessary labor which will not be validated by the market

i was under the impression that the labour theory of value only applies to commodities which are sold. things produced which are not sold (eg mud pies) are not commodities and have no value

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Ferrinus posted:

a commodity is something made to be sold,

but then someone could make a mud pie and claim they made it to be sold, and you'd have to delve into their mind to figure out that they are lying and the mud pie has no value

quote:

it has to have a use-value of some kind, which is what disqualified a mud pie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_cookie

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Ferrinus posted:

that's exactly why value and therefore commodity-hood can't depend on factors intrinsic to the object alone (how long it, specifically, took to make, what its maker was thinking as they made it, etc) but appear only when the object is brought to market and subject to the evaluation of the rest of society.

and if the rest of society doesn't buy that object, then it wasn't a commodity

it doesn't matter if that object looks identical to the 99 other objects that turned out of the same factory and were sold (and were therefore commodities).

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Ferrinus posted:

i guess you can define a commodity that way, but that's not how marx defines it. for marx, a commodity is something whose use-value A) exists but B) is alienated from its maker. some eggs you didn't eat and instead brought to market were commodities even though you dropped them. values, exchange values, and ultimately prices really do get generated by market forces for every egg, even if not every egg gets sold

oh okay

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
why anarchism fails and we need a (weberian) state

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/80495/1/WRAP_0070378-hi-250716-kumin_bmh.pdf

Gersau’s most serious political crisis was a citizenship dispute in the early
seventeenth century. Having admitted the Küttels as burghers (Landleute) in 1528, their
rising prosperity and influence caused the villagers to fall out over the question of whether to
exclude the family one hundred years later. Over several decades, the communal assembly
was paralyzed by the issue; at times, meetings came to blows. The Swiss allies, repeatedly
called in to arbitrate, nearly despaired of the stubbornness of both parties. Proposed
settlements remained unenforced and it was only escalating legal and diplomatic costs that
forced Gersau to bury the hatchet and leave the Küttel’s status unchanged. Subsequent
internal commentators deplored ‘the consequences of this disagreement upon our land, as we
had to experience to our highest detriment and loss’ and expressed the firm desire ‘to prevent
such division and discord affecting our dear fatherland in the future’. This episode
highlights one of the drawbacks of extreme local autonomy. When communes got split right
down the middle, there was no ‘neutral’ or superior authority to decide the matter one way or
another, opening the door for outside intervention.

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

so is p a modded r, or vice versa?

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Ferrinus posted:

this is why a lot of rhetoric about "neo-feudalism" is catchy but not correct. even if we go full-on worryfree cradle-to-grave corporate barracks you're still not a serf because nothing you use or make is under your control at any point

i think it's still useful for highlighting that the owners of capital today can treat the law of the land as optional, just like feudal lords. they are treated with leniency due to the hero-worship they get, they can lobby to change laws to benefit themselves, they can buy caribbean islands to escape normie morality, and if worst comes to worst they can escape the law by living in exile, roman polanski style

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Centrist Committee posted:

that’s just capitalism tho

sure but there have been periods where the distribution of wealth has been less extreme so the disparity in political power has also been less extreme

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Centrist Committee posted:

half of Capital is about how capitalists constant fought the Factory Acts to get younger, smaller, nimbler children to work terrible machines for more of the day

what's your point

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
i am maddest at them saying proletariat revolutionaries instead of proletarian revolutionaries

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/22/remarks-by-president-biden-after-marine-one-arrival-4/

Q Okay. And are there people who — in the Democratic Party, who want to defund the police?

THE PRESIDENT: Are there people in the Republican Party who think we’re sucking the blood out of kids?

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Larry Parrish posted:

if they were down with eugenics they were not Marxists because it's an inherently anti-egalitarian practice that basically postulates that most people are worthless. kind of the extreme opposite of marxism

it's entirely possible for a marxist to make a mistake or hold a view you find objectionable. eg stalin banned homosexual sex in 1934

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Centrist Committee posted:

enjoy the troll post!

where's the lie

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/818795001717850122/868292424601075722/video.mp4

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Centrist Committee posted:

Only labor produces value

...under commodity production, when marx was writing

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

indigi posted:

they’d just finished a war against counterrevolutionaries including Brits and Americans.

i wouldn't use the word "just" when it ended 14 years prior

you wouldn't say that george bush "just" left office

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

indigi posted:

afaik the sabotage started almost immediately after the civil war and kept up through the 30s. then the kulaks were a looming issue until the state got started liquidating their property and killing/exiling/gulaging people. it didn’t take 14 years for Stalin to get paranoid and fabricate the existence of a fifth column when they’d been dealing with it (or putting off dealing with it) the entire time

okay make that argument but don't justify the purges on the basis of events 14 years prior

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

dead gay comedy forums posted:

I think it is possible to see a clearer picture already. The main point of nuance that is missed from "what about the purges" is that by the time Stalin is directly on-hands about it, the systemic causes that justified action (corruption, sabotage, infiltration, careerism, opportunism) weren't fully addressed at the critical revolutionary period. By that time, the Party knew it had incorporated a lot of people it shouldn't have, that it pardoned reactionaries, former tsarist officers, grifters and all sorts of corrupt people that were actively hindering the Soviet state. Because of that failure, it had to usurp some of the same mechanisms of control in order to fight back for survival - and that allowed human shitbags to seize the opportunity to do so. A very "the weapon you have at hand" situation, unfortunately.

yes, stalin had to let local party officials take on the role of judge, jury and executioner, because local party officials were corrupt and needed rooting out!

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Ferrinus posted:

the purge was a pincer movement by people at the top and people at the bottom against the middle layer of party officials, many of whom were corrupt and needed rooting out but some of which were able to deflect that action towards their own rivals, though less so as everyone got later into the game

the entire system was corrupt which is why it stagnated and collapsed. soviet citizens in the 1980s were unwilling to stick their heads over the parapets and save socialism because they were the descendents of the ones who survived the purges by keeping their heads down

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

indigi posted:

is this even kind of true? I’ve never heard it before

no.

i recommend richard j evans' "the coming of the third reich", he goes over the street battles between the different paramilitaries and how the judicial system was rigged in favour of the right-wing. as far as i remember the closest the communists and nazis came to collaborating was that they staged a strike in berlin at the same time to try to unseat the governing SPD. but evans gives numerous examples of how they fought each other, and how the KPD and SPD were closer ideologically and socially than others parties, like when the rot frontkampferbund provided bodyguards to the widow of a murdered SPD politician

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

V. Illych L. posted:

a non-trivial amount of the working class was nazi. the KPD tried to mobilise nazi workers to be communist instead; also, zero-tolerance of nazis would've meant constant blood in the streets since these people often lived in the same neighbourhoods

the working class were underrepresented in the nazi party. being in a city with a strong history of trade unions and left-wing organisation inoculated workers against fascism
https://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
The Dialectician class gets Protection from False Consciousness at level 5. You could alternatively go Paladin and take Oath of the Revolutionist, although you will have to wait until level 9 since it's only a half-caster.

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
there was a proud boys livestream yesterday where someone opened up on them with a handgun and it was rad as gently caress

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Toupee Groupie posted:

sabotage the position I am in

If you feel like activism would hurt you and your family then don't do it.

Ideologies should serve people. If people are required to act self-destructively to advance an ideology, that ideology will be defeated because its adherents will burn out.

Some Marxists obsess over abstract conceptions like "historical processes" or "resolving the principle contradiction of production". It's very hubristic to think one person's contributions over the course of a few years (before they burn out) will change the course of human history.

If you are taking care of yourself and those around you without hurting others, you are doing the right thing.

Toupee Groupie posted:

The same feelings among some people in the group also seem to go to the idea that my wife and I "own" (as in have a mortgage) on a house, and that no one should own property, that I have given into capitalism and in the end am just part of petit bourgeoisie who is lucky enough to live within capitalist society comfortably, while giving lip service to Marxism because I "feel guilty" to since I have more than many people have.

Everyone should be secure in their living arrangements. Working class people owning their own home will not defeat communism.

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
we should call capitalists moneygeists

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

dead gay comedy forums posted:

some would even say he is the tankiest. the archtankie

when he rolls into hungary he drives a kv-6

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
e

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

no mister bond, i expect you to vote communist

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Raskolnikov38 posted:

considering mao still falls into the 50 year time span why would anyone pick deng

because he liked cats

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
psychological warfare is a spook

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

evilpicard posted:

Marxism is when you're not allowed to realize the value of your labour

marxism is when you use gaming and crypto under universal basic income after marrying a billionaire

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply