Hegel, theory, and reading

So does wage labor end or not? What about private property?

I can take it from here: The dialectics of wage labor and private property aren't negative dialectics that dissolve, they are foundational dialectics that build up and never throw away the prior logics, only limit their role and scope.

You're a genius!

Look, I'm too stupid for this dialectical logic stuff. What does it mean that the role and scope of these things are limited? That they wither away to the point of barely existing while never quite being completely gone?

W E W L A D

Private property does not go away, only the absolute right of private property.

Wage labor also does not end (didn't end in Marx's gotha program either). The need of some recognition of labor done for society in order to receive from society is the necessary condition for luxury production.

It means capital is put in a specific place in the social sphere of life and stays there. The government cannot function as a capitalist structure, education, healthcare, infrastructure, similar things. The labor done in these activities can actually be recognized directly as social just as Marx talks about labor in the Critique of the Gotha Program. Money and capital are not the same thing. You can use money without having that money be generated through any circuit of capital.

I know more about sophistry than you could ever fathom.

Nice try, if only you understood why.

Oh we can tell.

How can this be reconciled with state capitalism as a thing that exists?

The same way you reconcile state socialism with communism: it isn't the real deal.

A state run as a business isn't functioning as a real state.

Why not? This is exactly what neoreaction is. I cannot see any reason why the State cannot be run as a business in principle.

Because that's not the concept of a state, just as the USSR's functioning was not the concept of communism.

Empirical existents are what they are, they are not what anything should be. What things should be is found in a concept.

What makes a real state?

>I've been busy, y'know, >reading< and doing some serious thinking. The results are appearing on my blog. I'm still reading the Phenomenology

Why does almost every tripfag on this board feel the need to try and impress people with their phil and poli sci 101 knowledge? Drop the trip and stop trying to impress me, I'm not your dad.

Ahhh so like a mix of capitalism and socialism then. Wow. Pack it up guys, the libs were right.

LOL LEFTYPOL IS SOOOO ILLITERATE. GUYS I READ. HEY LOOK AT ME. I TOTALLY READ. WHATCH THIS: SCIENCE OF DIALECTICAL ADORNO ABSOLUTE NIHILIST CAPITAL SUBLATING INTO THE WILL TO POWER. LOL OK THAT WAS ENOUGH TECHNICAL SHIT FOR TODAY :🍀🍀🍀) AS YOU CAN SEE I READ. LOL BYE.

No, it could actually sort of work, I think. Imagine a bunch of AIs carry on with capitalism while humans are completely removed from production. You could say that capital is relegated to the machines.

it's almost like all tripfags are fucking retarded

So then machines doing work for us? I never really thought of that as capitalist, but I'm not opposed to that.

To put it in vulgar terms: a democracy that services everyone as the political moment of freedom, not just a democracy for a specific group. A state is basically the collective self-consciousness and rational will of a people.

Economics, by contrast, is freedom in the form of individual arbitrariness and contingent desire. The economic sphere exists not to service any specific necessary needs, but need as desire. Whatever people want, and whatever someone else is willing to provide without direct violent coercion or structural coercion towards the unethical, is all the market is for and what capital exists to service—if those with needs have money. It's not about any efficiency.

But you're my son, I'm showing you just how great you too could be if you applied yourself and pulled yourself up by your bootstraps like me. You disappoint me, son.

It's the inverse, machines take care of socialism, humans engage in capitalism.

so what do you predict? like just regular capitalism but with robots and UBI?

This doesn't make much sense, as it would require future capitalists to employ humans for production instead of machines.

No. I predict you stay a no good NEET. You'll be allowed to exist, Rebel, but no frivolous goodies for you.

It's the only thing that makes sense. Capital is a human to human relation. This is basic Marxism, lad.

That is not Rebel.

Here is a question for you, however:
How are you?

Why can't advanced AIs carry out capitalist relations, divorced from humans?

I'm still not sure I see how humans will be partaking in capitalism and machines in socialism, or how wage labor, private property, etc. are relegated to specific spheres, whatever that means. Why won't humans be completely removed from the process of production?

I'm not rebel. I'm another christcom shitposter.

I'm at the best I've socially and intellectually ever been. I've been contacted through my blog to do some writing. My writing on Hegel is doing what I intend it to, which is to explain Hegel and entice other people to engage his philosophy.

Sure thing, Rebel.

What is wrong AW, jealous?

Sadly I'm not nearly as well-read as Rebel (or at least he seems well-read). only a couple months ago I was an anarkiddie.

I wanna get to Hegel eventually but I've been trying to read some of the shit that comes before him so I can understand him better.

Because robots do not demand social recognition, if they did they'd just be people like you and me and we couldn't slave them.

The function of capital is to entice people to produce what is in mass wanted, yet which no one would produce without something being in it for them. By doing what someone else wants despite your indifference or hatred of it, you gain an abstract universal claim cashable as any determinate commodity you can afford with it.

Humans will continue to engage in exchanges and capital because our desires are endless. No machine barring a magic one can really control the genie of desire once it has been freed. The materially freer we are, the more we desire frivolities which machines can replicate, but which we won't recognize.

Shit never gets old.

Just put the trip back on dude we all know it's you.

I put he seems well-read there on purpose rather than saying that he *is* well-read on purpose. I don't like that he likes markets. I don't like that he shitposts on here all the time. I don't like that he's so mean to Muke.

yoooo. there are multiple christcoms ITT.

My econ professor said something like this once. I think it's great that you've finally embraced neo-classical economics. Capitalism and private property forever, man. Tragedy of the Commons4lyfe. Uphold Hegelian classcuckism.

Honestly, every once in a while I think to myself "some tripfags are okay" and then one of you comes in here with a "why I am now too smart to be a communist XD threads" and I remember that you became a leftist for the attention and the exotic labels that sound impressive to drop in a conversation. It's only natural that you'd leave eventually and I'm glad you have.

"We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place"

-Lenin

Isn't this precisely what will break down due to machines? As in, jobs no one would want to do, if not for getting paid a wage, because otherwise you will starve.

I still think we can have some flavor of capitalism between artificial intelligences. They basically run Wall Street nowadays, so I don't see why we could not have some notion of ownership and profit maximization and markets. I'm not sure what exactly this would look like, though. The LTV can even sort of make sense here.

Horseshoe theory is still bullshit theory, Rebel. Just because in abstract it looks the same does not mean it is the same.

The service sector exists. You underestimate the plurality of things which we do that others want, and just how frivolous they can be.

ITT: AW gets destroyed by Rebel.

why is this psychotic attention whore note banned

Why do you have such an inferiority complex towards Rebel?

He dropped the theory of Capital collapsing once he saw that it didn't collapse and renewed itself through crisis.

Once again, A.W. proves he misunderstands Marx's most basic concepts. Marx defines Capital as value in self expansion, exchange for currency does not equal capital and that was the main difference between Simple commodity exchange and Complex.

Also reminder that when A.W. used to lecture us all on Hegel he actually hadn't read Hegel. You can tell, because he's pretentious enough to consistently update his goodreads and Hegel was mysteriously absent.

Entertainment purposes, it is good to have something to laugh at.

Nice job not reading what I've said. Money itself is not capital, and I said "exchange >and< capital" precisely because exchange is not capital. Capital exists as the self-expansion of value abstracted as the claim of self-expansion of labor. How about you read Marx, son?

The structural collapse thesis is actually right, wtf are you talking about? The system is doomed to crisis if left to its absolute whim. The collapse I'm talking of is logical collapse into nothing, which does not happen to capital. It is negated as all other concepts are negated in dialectics: put in its place and restricted.

In you say:

This is not the function of Capital. From this you can only conclude that you meant Capital functions as currency through exchange, but nice try, I know you love shifting goal post.

If you mean humanities self expansion being put into place then Marx would agree and you're contradicting him for nothing. If you mean private property's function in Capital then I fail to see how that particular destruction is undialectical if its function of self expansion is synthesized with something new.

Wouldn't A.W. first need to actually read Marx's works before misunderstanding him?

I remember according to A.W.'s goodreads that the only Marx work he had listed was part 1 of capital, however judging from his posts I would surprised if he has read more than Wikipedia when it comes to marx and marxism in general.

Hegel is textbook Satanism
youtube.com/watch?v=b2EK-z8idlk

It is the function of capital in practice. That's why industrial capitalists have to sell >commodities. All capital rests on industrial capital. Capital is not currency. My point about currency and capital is that money has no intrinsic connection to capital circuits, it does not logically originate there, and as such can originate in other ways outside private banks or business.

You miss what I mean, but that's ok that you can't into dialectics.

It isn't though. You say "the function of capital is to entice people to produce what is in mass wanted, yet which no one would produce without something being in it for them". First, this is a function of commodity exchange which is completely possible without the presence of Capital. People are alienated from their means of production, they then are enticed to produce commodities to sell on a market place which have a social use value but provide no use value for them. You are parroting what Marx lays out in the first few Chapters of Capital, and either twisting it for the purpose of your pretentious sophistry, or you are so utterly lacking in intellect that you still conflate and confuse some of the most basic concepts from the first volume of Capital. There is nothing about your post that addresses the function of Capital as Marx describes it, which is what you are trying to address. Capital is part of the M-C-M' cycle, this post only addresses C-M-C.

The function of Capital once again (the self expansion of humanities ability to expand its productive power, or its value) is not destroyed - it is transmuted. The power of Capital is now in the hands of the majority of people and its function, now under their control.

I also find it funny that A.W. the incessant tripfag who proudly proclaimed economics as pseudoscience, is now trying to stitch together the vague neoclassical definition of Capital (which was destroyed during the Cambridge Capital Controversies) with his shallow understanding of philosophy to somehow debunk Marx's completely different definition while switching back and fourth between the two, like a skater on thin ice.

A.W., how I've missed you.

Not en mass. Capital is the very expansion into mass. The condition of separation of labor from means of production is an aspect of the chains of need.

You're right nothing I mentioned has to do with capital as pure self-expansion, because that's not a point I was making; the relation is implicit. The accumulation of money and the greater claim to labor's products is what entices humans to enslave themselves to administering and directing a machine to expand production of things they don't give a fuck about. The rest employed also do not give a fuck, yet this is socially necessary labor for people desire the products, and each worker gets a claim on any labor of product elsewhere which their desire on whatever whim or need and can afford. This is tied into the M-C-M' cycle.

Capital need not function under a capitalist-worker paradigm, and nowhere did I claim such. It's why coops of various forms can work and why private capitalists also can work.

You've refuted nothing.

I find it funny how much of not an argument or contribution to the thread you've made. I missed your empty head too :3

So how was Feudalism put in its place and restricted Autistic Wiener? Did we not arrive to capitalism through a dialectic process?

Also you know, the whole drive for survival. I reject your whole argument completely, renumeration for undesirable work makes sense. This does not have to be done with money, it only needs to be done so that their renumeration is abstract and thus able to be exchanged for commodities they desire. The whole, "produce for use value not exchange value" thing you'd be aware of if you could read.

No it isn't, that is purely C-M-C. It is only M-C-M' when the person takes his money to purchase commodities, to then employ labourers (or to exploit himself) and to then sell these commodities on the market for MORE money than he started. The labourer who works for the capitalist is doing so because he lacks options.

And you have not refuted Marx, possibly because you have not read him.

Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

Feudalism is not logical, it has no place. You cannot do for Feudalism or slavery what Marx did for Capital, they have no logic and take place in no logic. It's just arbitrary contingent social form.

You reject my whole argument…except for part of my argument, ok David Retardo ;).

It's M-C-M' by relation of expansion of production. I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand that people will accumulate money and expand because it just makes sense to do so for their benefit overall. The laborer lacks options because society demands he give to get, and this puts a necessary temporary limit on consumption in a world of finite goods.

Oh I haven't refuted Marx, he did it himself.

In order to change the world for the better you've got to have a concept of what it should be. That requires that you start thinking, an activity you clearly are incapable of.

Thought conditioned by social being??????
SECRET MARXIST???????????

"Historical materialism is bunk" - A.W (2016)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha*breathes*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy shit dude, that was fuckin epic. So what? Dialectics is suppose to explain logic, and history is a logical process… but it can't explain Feudalism because its… NOT LOGICAL?! LMAO NIGGA IT'S A PART OF HISTORY LOL

Go home everyone, A.W. hasn't read Hegel, multiple people in this thread have already brought it up.

He lacks options because he is divorced from his own means of productions. Once again proving you are the only one too "stupid" to understand basic leftist concepts in the thread.

I never once mentioned labour vouchers, direct barter is another option. Also being non-accumulative is a pretty important distinction between money and labour vouchers.
So let me get this straight: you complain that Marx "refuted" himself by advocating for the destruction of Capital. I pointed out this isn't true, something you acknowledge because he states not only in the Gotha Program, but numerous times in Capital (for example: when he considers Surplus value in Chapter 17, he says that the "surplus labour" would then become surplus labour handled by the community rather than by the Capitalist) that the function of Capital as the self expansion of value is transmuted and is handled by the majority of people rather than being handled by the Capitalist. It looses its function in commodity exchange on a market, but that function is not destroyed, it merely shifts form. You must play hockey, I've never seen someone shift goalpost this fast. You even do it by the end of this post.

Kek, A.W. I thought Rebel was a pseudo but you really take the cake.

Not only has A.W. not read Hegel (and it's becoming more and more apparent he hasn't read Marx either), but he hasn't read babby philosophy like Plato or Aristotle.

Yup. Go read my blog post on dialectics and learn something for once.

He lacks options because this diremption from his self-subsistence and utter dependence on others is the condition of his material freedom and wealth through their mutual dependence on him.

There is a reason we came up with money almost immediately and dropped barter real quick in history.

A capitalism which finds itself eventually subverted by its arbitrary denial of private capital and the free realization of arbitrary desire that is beyond the bounds of planning.

The only goal posts shifting are the ones in your mind.

You just keep digging your own grave fam

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/

PDF related too

...

was rand a Hegelian?

No, he lacks options because he does not have access to the means or production. If he did, like he previously had (see: Chapter 26 onward of Capital volume 1), he would not have to be a wage slave for someone else.

Because a universal equivalent is needed for uncontrolled and unpredictable commodity exchange, which is what I'm proposing WILL be abolished.

It's not state capitalism, the function of Capital is transmuted. Class does not exist, and the function of self expansion which Capital fulfills is now in the hands of the majority of people. I was waiting to see if you'd bring this up (to see if you had actually read Marx like you claim), but Capital is not just the self expansion of wealth - it's accumulation for accumulation sake. This is changed, now accumulation is postulated on some greater purpose, PRODUCTION FOR USE VALUE YOU MONG.

Because society demands he give to get. If he did not get ripped from them, then he would still be a lonely farmer with none of the modern wonders of consumption. The great boom of industry comes at the chain of mutual dependence with no way out.

Which is what I know cannot and will not be abolished.

It is state capitalism. Class is not necessary, coops are capitalist and have no hierarchical distinction. Production FOR PURE DESIRE is its empirical expression, its engine is self-expansion, and its subordination to a general plan as such is only an arbitrary chain on it which its structures rupture, you moron.

Reminds me of this thread in which A.W. claimed that the whole idea of starting with the Greeks is false among many other amusing things.
archive.is/RapCg

Remember the shit you got for your very first blogpost?

Lel, you literally said in

That's what I'm responding to. You mongoloid.

You are utterly failing to see how a collectively owned mean of production changes the dynamic. He would not have to work under someone else if he had access to the means of production, this is my point. This is a big distinction.

I like how you left out the whole "accumulation for accumulation" sake part. This is a fundamental difference. In fact, this completely satisfies your original complaint about Marx. The function of Capital is "put in its place".

I remember he literally translated a passage and passed it off as his own.

That was a good one. Thanks for the link.

Shit was hilarious he was trying to pass off a mix of two different machine translation of an article as his own personal work.
He even shamelessly put his own name on it and everything. Idiot really thought that nobody would ever find out.

Remember that three professors have sided with me and zero of you know anything so can't judge it?

Well you should have just linked the article, and not the book. I'm aware of the "never was a barter economy". It logically collapses into money mediated trade really quickly. Since I gave another impression, I'll accept I was wrong.

You utterly fail to see that there is a drive to arbitrariness and individual capital in the very possibility opened by gaming the common storehouse of goods that's no longer escapable thanks to virtual currencies and black markets. Who cares what he "would do". He does not direct have access to the means of production neither in this economic arrangement NOR in Marx's state capitalist arrangement. He's still a wage laborer that must give to get, and must work what he can and not what he wants, and must receive an abstract signifier on his claim to the products of labor which he is alienated from as well.

The state's accumulation in Marx's planned economy is for its own sake, it's based on arbitrary whim, it's just a dictated whim that has none of the fluidity which individual free capital can and does have. Right now if something catches on in a flash fad capital responds stupidly quick to take advantage of super profits. No bureaucracy, no votes, no delays more than the general regulations they must meet. Production starts and expands until it reaches its point of saturation. Desire met, socially necessary labor done, claims accounted for, all with no central plan because fads cannot and need not be planned.

People who read hagel and come to leftist conclusions are mentally retarded

...

I'll respond to the rest of your post, but it's hilarious you can't even be arsed to read what the leftcom posted. Both the book and the article are about how there was never a barter economy like you picture, and barter actually sprang from money not the other way around. You didn't just give the impression you were wrong, you WERE wrong.

He does have access, he is just as much an owner as anyone else. You can keep saying "no he doesn't" over and over, it doesn't make it true. He might still have to work "what he can", but that shitty work is split up by the community instead of one guy sitting on his ass while he finances 10 other guys to do it. You keep ignoring this crucial part.

It is not for its own sake, it's dictated by the community. Commodity exchange is not dictated by the community, it is the community imposing its needs on each other through commodities. The economic is above the social. There is a difference, if you want to signify this difference as "arbitrary" then you can do that, but there is a change of form. Capital is put in its place.
And why is this good? I thought we want to put Capital in its place, you're starting to sound like an ancap. Have you never heard of decentralized planning or participatory economics?

Kek yes we can, see . You're a fraud.

I remember when you posted this lie and got called out for it and the only person you could mention was not a professor.
Which three are they again? and could you post evidence of these three professor's siding with you.

It really would be in your best interests to stop with the continued lies.

I misunderstood the first part of this post. I'll go into what I mean by decentralized planning. The entire means of production and distribution are owned by everyone involved in their receptive processes and functions (including those who consume). Those who work it have access to the tacit knowledge of all the consumers as well as themselves to make choices on how to carry out production. As far as value moving where it needs to go, decisions can still be made on a quick basis - this is where the participatory part comes in. If there's a choice that needs to be made, it will be made as quick as possible and anyone who wants to can vote on the issue. If it is made on Thursday, it's made on Thursday the number of people who participate is irrelevant. This is a very important distinction from commodity exchange.

> Anarchists >still are BTFO'd< as they have always been.
Meanwhile you and yui still embarrass yourself completely when you actually talk about anarchism showing your ignorance. This is why Rebel is better and a mutch more likeable person than you guys cause he understands irony while you guys remain genuine.

Why do theory people always need to assert their knowledge on all subjects they have no knowledge about? Its like you have the ultimate eyes to see everything and go critique sound and create an whole system of idea's around what you see from sound and from sutch idea's you critique your idea of what sound it and declare a victory.

I can "find flaws" in any text provided I am allowed to redefine terms as I see fit.
Alice: "Bob is eating shit sandwiches. I mean he literally said that he literally puts literal dog shit on his bread."
Bob: "What the heck? I never said that."
Alice: "Okay, here is a text from Bob's blog. Bob, would you mind reading it aloud?"
Bob: "Just had some bread with Nutella. Yummy."
Alice: "Now behold, if I redefine Nutella to mean dog shit, what happens? Bob, would you mind reading that again with my clarification put in?"
This is fundamentally how A.W. argues, and not just in this thread. It's possible that he isn't quite aware of the extent of doing that, since he doesn't seem really familiar with what he criticizes.

Marx uses money in a very specific meaning. Money can be used to obtain means of production. Labor vouchers are not money in that sense, since these vouchers can't be used to obtain means of production. (To be fair, this is a distinction lost on many.) In the post A.W. admits in a round-about snarky way that he implicitly uses the term money in another meaning, and it is confirmed in , so labor vouchers are included in that usage. And that way, he can "see" and "reveal" the "flaws" of Marx talking about money. Marx didn't "see" that money could be regulated so as not to allow buying means of production with it, because he didn't define the term that way. That's argumentum ad nutellashitarium, mate (and don't tell me that ain't real Latin, I can define Latin to be that).

A similar transformation of meaning happens with the meaning of capital in the posts , . In Marx, Capital is a social relation involving who controls the means of production and also inolving the automatic systematic pressure of expansion, the means of production doing their own thing and making humans their victims, like in Goethe's poem The Sorcerer's Apprentice. When you use the word just in the sense of the means of production being what they are physically, you are not blowing anyone's mind when you say that this "capital" (=tools and machinery) will continue to exist. A.W. is like Midas, except everything he touches turns into shit.

It's much worse than that. Generalized production for the market is not humans asking for consumption goods with the rest being built around that. Steel itself is asking for steel.

But capital does.

A.W., you should read some Rosa Lichtenstein to improve your logical thinking.

...

Starting with the Greeks is dumb. But so is putting your entire stake in philosophy in outdated 19th century German idealism.

Meant to respond to this:

That isn't me, dear.

Now can you finally answer my question about the difference between rectitude in the philosophy of right and Aristotlean virtue-ethics?

The answer is no, of course.

Reminder that Philosophy of Right is an abortion.

Holy fuck we're entering ego levels that shouldn't even be possible. Leave your echo chamber AW, it's not good for your health.

Last time I checked that was a lie.

What's your blog?

The only people who say starting with the Greeks is dumb are people who didn't read the Greeks. Everyone harkons back to them, from Decartes to Nietzsche.

He admits to never having read the Greeks, so you seem to be right.

I remember when you and A.W. used to get along.

Did you just get sick of him being a pseudo-intelectial cunt all the time or did something else happen?

I remember in IRC when AW randomly started flooding the IRC that I was being undialectical and wouldn't quit for over 5 hours.

The man is quite literally going insane.

Lots of people have been getting sick of him. He's locked himself in an echo chamber. I count 3 people who have gotten sick of him.

Nothing specific happened, I just realised he's a poser and doesn't know nearly as much as he thinks he does.

Just checked his twitter and his tears of butthurt are delicious.

I can't wait for more and more people to find out what a fraud he is, with someone like him it is only a matter of time. It will be amazing to see his reaction as he gets completely crushed.

Deep down I hope he never leaves Holla Forums as he is the greatest lolcow of this entire board and I doubt anyone would ever be able to match him.

Do you have logs for this? such an autistic outburst would be quite amusing to read.

Money can buy anything for sale on the market. Just because something is not for sale, does not mean money does not exist. How dumb are you? This is straight out of Capital. What is bought with money has nothing to do with money, only that that money can and does play a universal role for whatever it is that can be traded.

that's why industries can collapse when people stop demanding them, mhm. That's why capitalists are always just continuing to produce what never sells. Yeah, you're hopeless.

Meanwhile, you still have no theory and no historical gains. Gee, I wonder why I should care about your moralisms?

Indirect access is what we have today, indirect access is what communal ownership is, and in thus indirect access is what you have in communism. You don't get to go to a factory and commandeer its entirety to make one jar of jelly, no, you just go down to the storehouse and get a jar of jelly.

Why is it good? Because it's my freedom and theirs, and it's none of your business what we do so long as it doesn't stop you from being just as free to consume and sell what you can and want.

Number of professors is increasing, number of your rebuttals: 0. I don't need professors to know I'm right, I say it only because I know you get massively butthurt, just like Rebel.

Was like half a year ago.

And you're even more of a lolcow today.

It would be a great favour to the rest of us if one or multiple of those three people in his torture chamber whom are sick of him would save and post logs for us to see in the future, I have a feeling that it would have highly entertaining results.

...

you are all equally cancerous and all should be banned

Well I have logs of AW in a discussion with Hoxha being all autistic about brute efficacy and how Capital is the universal of economics, leading Hoxha to get the fuck out of there for the sake of his own sanity.

Also

That's the worst thing you have, Rebel? Hahahaha. Post it lad, post it.

It's the worst thing I have, because you make me sick and I've avoided you because of it.

Well, there's also this whole post, and our tweets, you gloating over creating a diagram for something that isn't even Hegel's idea….

p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; } [10:00 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: the reason why you won't find true universals in physics is because, ta da, there are none [10:00 PM] To hangout: The universal is a useless, useless concep [10:00 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: nope [10:00 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: read Capital [10:00 PM] To hangout: Everything enters into the definition of everyhting else in some way or another [10:00 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: nope [10:00 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: Read capital [10:00 PM] To hangout: Not an argument [10:00 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: true differentiated moments in unity [10:01 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: I'm pointing you to it because it refutes you [10:01 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: it's one of the few actual scientific universals we have [10:01 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: it's brilliant [10:01 PM] To hangout: Explain this.[10:01 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: Capital is a universal as living concept [10:01 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: it generates its particularities which individually reproduce and genrate the universal 10:02 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: and it can be done, as has been done by Marx, in the very concept to prove it [10:02 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: I know you hate Marxists so you're not gonna bother, but that it happened with one science at all is unbelievable [10:02 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: that it can even happen halfway is amazing

Utter cringe that you save this shit mate.

[10:08 PM] To hangout: Wait
[10:08 PM] To hangout: Hold on
[10:08 PM] To hangout: One question
[10:08 PM] To hangout: How does marx conceptualize experience
[10:09 PM] To hangout: as far as I can tell his is not nearly as nuanced as Whitehead's.
[10:09 PM] To hangout: If he is ignoring a level then I find the whole thing bunk epistemologically.
[10:09 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: It doesn't have to be, he didn't give a single fuck about metaphysics
[10:09 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: He merely assumes experience, assumes internal relations

[10:10 PM] (Channel) A.VV.: Marx's whole shtick is that you know fuck all about experience as an individual

I didn't, it's in my twitter PMs.

Bookmarked no doubt.

No, it's pretty recent. It's from just one of the people complaining about how fucking delusional AW is.

Maybe you can make a video about it!

I will if AW becomes relevant but you and I both know that won't happen

He will be. He's part of the dubtrack channel now.

We have a secret weapon…

THE
VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I bet this was in your twitter PM too.

It's a crafting of my own hand actually.

GAN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

If that's something you've actually saved of A.W, you're a cunt mate.

Yep, it's AW. Idc, he's wearing an autism shirt so he deserves it lmao.

Hilarious fam.

Thanks for sharing this, it is very typically A.W. and it is hardly surprising that people are getting sick of his shit.

He looks just as autistic as I thought he would tbh.

Personally I am quite curious about how much the fraudulent translation damaged how people see him behind the scenes when it was revealed that it was just a mix of machine translations instead of being his own work.

Truly he his the reincarnation of Hegel, and will be the one who completes the system of German idealism.

what

a

fucking

LEGEND

Is that all he showed you? Goddam that wasn't even half as autistic as it got. We literally were yelling at each other.

Post full logs

bro.. can I get a selfie with you? I want to take a picture with the man who will complete the system of German idealism one day.

post full logs then, if you're not S C A R E D kiddo.

abolish work!

I don't save mumble logs, ask Ego, he has them.

woah… so this is the face of the great hegelian wizard known as anthony wolf

"Almost immediately">>1175248

Don't intimidate mentally ill people rebel

youre better than this cmon dude

The politically correct term is "sorcerer".

it's a meme, it's not even him

Because we had trade economies immediately when humans arose…wait.

k

How do you know my secret call sign

They don't even look alike tbqh Big guy

...

worked tho

That is even worst because its deviantart manchild tier.

...

don't listen to him, look in your hearts… The Vegan Anarchist is him!

Yes, vegan anarchist is the real A.W. his twitter display picture is actually a photoshopped image of his older brother.

who really is the vegan anarchist guy?

Is this ironic, this whole sentence just presents your ignorance in sutch a complete form that it must be intended as a joke. Do you seriousily know nothing at all about anarchism AW? Or wont you just be botherd to actually research it and just base your opinion on prejudice?

a youtuber called the vegan anarchist, I don't think he goes on leftypol, but he's a big meme on /anarcho/

The charge in post was that A.W. redefines terms, then injects the redefined terms into whatever he is skim-reading, to "find" flaws that he created himself by injecting the different meaning into the writings of poor dead people who can't defend themselves. This is obvious when he is explicit about what he means by a term; when he is not, it just looks like gobbledegook. Labour vouchers aren't money in the Marxist sense of the term, and the "findings" of A.W. are just a series of equivocations.

When a firm creates a specific token system for giving swag to particularly obedient workers, a Marxist wouldn't call that money. Maybe A.W. wouldn't call that money either, with his reasoning that the tokens are not exchanged on the market. Somebody who is on the same level on the bell-end scale as A.W. might then retort that the allocation system within that firm is actually the market because

he looks like a gremlin, oddly of curious of his content now.

youtube.com/watch?v=NzrI2x8vJ-w

He should rename it to
The Ego and his Blog :^)

...

that's a cute bunny is it yours?

A.W.s belief that the direction is that people always steer production and never the other way around is the standard fairy tale of capitalism apologists. Pure idealism. The reality is that cars ask for cars. As the number of cars in a city increases and the number of bikes shrinks, cycling becomes more dangerous, which reinforces that development. Cars ask for big streets and parking spaces which makes the city decompress and sprawl out its guts, which in turn makes biking, or God forbid me using that un-American word, walking, even less attractive. Which means more car usage. A.W. seems to believe people are born with genetic desire for this or that specific product.

Should I take it as a compliment you used a picture of me?

I love the file name tbh.

You guys realize that AW is a troll right?

He makes these posts because he likes to see you people get angry.

You've been duped.

Sorry A.W. I don't think anyone is going to believe this attempt to save your own image.

That's the thing.

This is an elaborate parody of the shit that rebel pulls where afterwards he goes "I'm only pretending to be retarded."

I'm not AW. AW literally doesn't care what you think of him, otherwise he wouldn't be making these threads.

Don't bully.

I've been in a heated debate with AW for the past week or so about why I think German Idealism is insane. No thank you.

seriously, he can never hide how mad he is when people shitpost and make fun of him

Of course it is dear. Keep telling yourself that. I can't possibly imagine AW being an egotistical douche.

Whoa who would have thought that the person who really likes a philosopher that wrote a book called On the Concept of Irony likes being ironic.

Prediction for 2017: A.W. will diddle some kids.

Marx's problem wasn't with capital, it was with "capitalists." In other words, Marxism is just one big giant ad-hominem attack.

youtube.com/watch?v=3-YVJ-gPDUs

please stop being cancer. people like you make people afraid to go into the field of philosophy. Please, you're actually harming academics which are actively getting slashed by neoliberal education.

Capital doesn't accumulate itself. That is like saying that guns kill people.

lol

Marx was against Capitalist insofar as they were the protectors of Capital. He thought the petit-bourgeois would be instrumental in a revolution.

I'll admit to not actually having read more than the foreword of phenomenology of spirit once at a friends place, and only single chapters of Capital linked here once or twice. But
Is pretty fucking stupid dude.
Since capital is self-expanding, it beckons creating needs, not meeting them.
Saying that capital is created and destroyed by demand ignores the effect that capital has on demand.

I think you're confusing "protecting" capital with "hording" capital.

Yes, and who controls that property and how they control the property is changed. Keep playing semantic games A.W., you are letypol's village idiot after all.

Number of proofs of said professors: 0.

No, his theory of the state as a bourgeois playground makes them the protectors of Capital.

He was referring to capital accumulation. He didn't mean that under communism there no longer would be anyone to guard the iron mines.

It does both. The need it meets, however, is the need that can match its value, not needs that are species needs for survival or well-being. It is needs as pure desire. The frivolity of capitalism is nothing but the frivolity of desire and the incentive to capitalize on flashes of desire. It's not a system with a logic meant to service anything efficiently but the draw of profits.

Did I ever imply anything else?

It's hard to tell since you jump from point to point.

...

Some 100 level analysis here

This guy gets it.

ye he does

Hi AW, long time fan, first time poster. Please explain what this passage means for me, I'm stuck on it rn.

...