Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
It's called capital
Click to expand...
Not duh. Money is not magic. Its a symbol for value used to exchange. It does not have magical properties which strip people of their humanity, make them zombies, or reduce their capacity for free association.

So basically, you're right back to that other argument you had in that other thread that money is magic evil bad juju fetish object that turns people into monsters by right of its very existence.

This is fetishistic reasoning along the lines of tribal cultures who blame the spirits for bad events happening to them. This is the intellectual equivalent of Catholicism claiming that objects can hold evil powers over people. Please. Save us the voodoo economics.

the exploitation still occurs
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Surplus labor value theory has been shown to be quantifiably nonsense and has been abandoned by mainstream economists for decades and complete nonsense. Why are you still spouting the literal equivalent of claiming the Sun revolves around the Earth in economics as some sort of mythical truth sent down on high from the Father?

Karl Marx (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Although Marx's economic analysis is based on the discredited labour theory of value, there are elements of his theory that remain of worth
Click to expand...
Although Marx's economic analysis is based on the discredited labour theory of value
Click to expand...
the discredited labour theory of value
Click to expand...
 
Izo

Izo

Tranny Chaser
20,127
25,277
Trollface_sl said:
i hope you all kill yourselves.
Click to expand...
Have some pizza, my grumpy friend. Your bs is most likely < 4mmol/L.
OsvgBsc.gif
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
Money, along the market structure, gives an object additional properties that the object didn't have to begin with. I explained this in post #1. A painting is no longer simply a painting a market structure has been created and a painting now has a market value in terms of an abstraction, in terms of certain amount of money. No magic, just analyses.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe the labor theory of value is correct: the relationship is still forced because the worker still needs that abstraction of value, that intermediary called money, to sustain a life. Thus, he enters into forced relationships he himself does not want to enter into.
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
Dumar;422080 said:
It doesn't matter if you don't believe the labor theory of value is correct: the relationship is still forced because the worker still needs that abstraction of value, that intermediary called money, to sustain a life.Thus, he enters into forced relationships he himself does not want to enter into.[/QUOTE]

citation required.
Click to expand...
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
oh yeh you can quit this relationship you want. go become a tree huggers and live with birds.


Good bye.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Dumar_sl said:
Money, along the market structure, gives an object additional properties that the object didn't have to begin with.
Click to expand...
Wrong. What properties? This is abject assertion fallacy. ALL of Surplus Labor Value Theory is assertion fallacy. The entire scope of Marxist doctrine relies on it, and he just PRESUMED it was true. He didn't quantify it. Didn't show it exists in any way. You are doing the same exact thing. You just ASSUME its true for the purposes of your rhetoric.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe the labor theory of value is correct
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with my belief, Dumar. There is literally ZERO EVIDENCE supporting its existence. It is entirely ASSUMED as a foundational tenant of your entire theory, but it has absolutely no substance backing it whatsoever. You literally base your entire ideology on a baseless, unsupportable assertion. Your premise is flawed from the start.

That's not me saying that. Thats every major economist in the world today. The theory has been outright abandoned by the economic community for DECADES, if not GENERATIONS.

This is literally the economic version of the Creation Museum argument.
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
Man is free. He is free to live the way he wants. Leave this society, resign from your social contract, and do what you desire.


That is the beauty of choices.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Also, the irony of telling us it doesn't matter if we believe it, its true because you say so. How is that NOT a religious mindset?

We want quantified proof. Your side has had armies of researchers engaging in direct research on these issues for 150 years. People far more dedicated to Marx than you or anyone you know could be, and they are the ones who claim the surplus labor value theory is false. Its too simplistic a model.

It simply does not take into account demand for products after production, scarcity, it presumes that the value of a good is exclusively determined by the input needed to make it. This is nonsense on its face. A simple thought experiment blows it out of the water. A person is trying to sell a bottle of water. They sell it in a gas station in the middle of a major city. The water is worth maybe a dollar. Maybe two whatever a bottle of water is today.

Now the man carries that bottle of water to the desert to sell. Suddenly the value of his bottle of water skyrockets.

Location, availability, post production transport, demand, all influence price. This is WHY your communist economies FAILED Dumar. They thought the value of a product was solely a result of its labor input. Its not. This is demonstrable on its face in any market in the world. These mechanisms of perception exist for a REASON. They help to delineate HOW resources are divided based on DESIRE and CAPACITY, rather than simply a function of labor over time.

Labor over time is involved in the pricing mechanism, but its a very small part of it.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
One of the entire points of Capital is an analyses of what a commodity is. I've told you, you talk about things you know nothing about. And you keep bringing up the same questions, and I keep answering them kindly. You bring them up again, and I answer you again. I've described summarily what a commodity was before. Do I have to explain it again? Or do you want a longer, more detailed post that you'll scoff at and won't read.I don't know what you're looking for but to just argue.

What I'm talking about here regarding communistic social relations has little to do with the the labor theory of value. If you want to get into that, we can certainly, but it has little to do with the fact that masking takes place in describing the relationships in production among people.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
One of the entire points of Capital is an analyses of what a commodity is.
Click to expand...
That isn't proof that the value of a good is determined exclusively as a result of its production input.

Its just a definition which can change depending upon the circumstances. No one cares about what you think a commodity it. We care what commodities AREN'T. They AREN'T fetishes of evil that turn people into slavering cannibalistic beasts or slave owners.

We want you to recognize that you are literally a secularized religious fanatic. We don't want rants from you. We want you to realize that you are touting 150 year old dead theories which are unfalsifiable and unsupportable nonscientific nonsense that have been resoundly rejected and abandoned in the credible academic community and thus are not a valid basis for reconstructing an entire society.

What I'm talking about here regarding communistic social relations has little to do with the the labor theory of value
Click to expand...
Wrong. The very concept of exploitation in marxist doctrine, the very crux of your argument, has its feet solidly planted in a concrete block of Marx's base assertion that the value of a product is the result solely of its labor input.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
The concept of exploitation as defined by labor value surplus theory is the economic equilvalent of phrenology in physical anthropology.
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
hodj_sl said:
Wrong. The very concept of exploitation in marxist doctrine, the very crux of your argument, has its feet solidly planted in a concrete block of Marx's base assertion that the value of a product is the result solely of its labor input.
Click to expand...
why can't dumar understand this? why does he have to repeat this shit over and over again?
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Respectfully Dumar, you answer the questions by quoting Marx. This is what you posted in regards to masking...

One of the centrepieces ofMarx'scritique of political economy is that the juridical labour contract between the worker and his capitalist employer obscures the true economic relationship, which is (according to Marx) that the workers do not sell their labour, but their labour power, making possible a profitable difference between what they are paid and the new value they create for the owners of capital (a form of economic exploitation). Thus, the very foundation of capitalist wealth creation involves ?as Marx says explicitly? a "mask".[32]More generally, Marx arguesthat transactions in the capitalist economy are often far from transparent ? they appear different from what they really are. This is discovered, only when one probes the total context in which they occur.Hence Marx writes:

Vulgar economics actually does nothing more than to interpret, to systematize and turn into apologetics ? in a doctrinaire way ? the ideas of the agents who are trapped within bourgeois relations of production. So it should not surprise us that, precisely within the estranged form of appearance of economic relations in which these prima facie absurd and complete contradictions occur ? and all science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence ? that precisely here vulgar economics feels completely at home, and that these relationships appear all the more self-evident to it, the more their inner interconnection remains hidden to it, even though these relationships are comprehensible to the popular mind[33]
Click to expand...
You aren't answering the question. You are appealing to Marx. Convince me of it in your own words or with research, don't simply say "Marx says".
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
That's not even scratching the surface of his analyses. Labor theory of value is but one small part detailing the exploitation. It'snot just about value, but aboutwhat man does, his activity that gets exploited. Because for Marx, that activity defines man as he is, as he exists.

A commodity has certain properties that another thing, a non-commodity does not. This is obvious. As I explained before, the fact that a market structure exists for this new commodity imparts certain characteristics that make people behave toward the commodity differently than if it wasn't. The housing bubble, for example, when housing prices skyrocketed was notdue to the properties of houses as is, as they exist in reality, but due to the market structure laid on top of them represented as market value.

They're not rants. They're textbook, ones that every major academic in probably literally every subject in the humanities have read, acknowledge, and cite. One that the leading academic in your field has dedicated an entire lecture series to. So stop with the religious zealotry accusatory hyberbole which you're doingagain. Geez, ridiculous.

I've told you the other parts before: labor theory of value is but a part. Do you want me to go through them again for you to ignore?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
I dunno man. Let's put it this way Dumar:

Lumie believes that evolution can not occur because Pasteur's research showed that spontaneous generation is not possible in a neutral, sealed substance without the prior presence of live bacteria.

This is a common but blatantly discredited view. Pasteur wasn't trying to disprove the possibility of the advent of life in primordial Earth conditions prior to the advent of ecology altering organisms, such as oxygen processing single celled organisms which fundamentally altered the make up of our atmosphere and made modern life possible.

He was merely trying to disprove the ancient belief that bacteria molds and fungus sprang up on dead material directly FROM that decaying material.

Yet Lumie still spouts this completely discredited notion regularly as "Truth" which everyone either believes because he said so, or they are idiots.

Are you seeing ANY commonality between Lumie's insistence that 300 year old outdated concepts are more valid than modern research results and your assertion that 150 year old outdated concepts are more valid than modern research results?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
They're not rants. They're textbook
Click to expand...
Outdated textbooks, but nevertheless, remember this quote by Heinlein that I brought up to you before?

One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority.
Click to expand...
The textbook was WRONG Dumar. It happens. Get over it. Recognize that OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE trumps THEORY.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
They're textbook according to leading academics in your field. The field you yourself claim to study. Do you want me to link them again for you? You're quoting a science fiction writer, and I quote literally the entire literature of your entire field.

I mean, really.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
They're textbook according to leading academics in your field.
Click to expand...
No, no they aren't, and anthropologists aren't economists, although the fields certainly touch, but EVERY field has its hands on Anthropology's ass and tits because she's just that goddamn sexy.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Also notice Dumar's appeal to authority there?

Heinlein's right. Theory is a framework, a handy convention that is tossed as soon as it is eclipsed by a better convention. Stop putting it on a pedestal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.