Thoughts on this?

How are ya gonna rebut this one, Holla Forums? twitter.com/Logo_Daedalus/status/903641008470183937

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticization_of_politics
theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/30/chimpanzee-wins-10000-dollars-abstract-painting
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

equivocating on value

also that doesnt have any arguments.

the only people who care about "aesthetics" as some abstract thing are fascists, it's such a giveaway.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticization_of_politics
one look at that runt's profile confirms it

yeah everyone knows Marxists don't know anything about aesthetics

I might be severely retarded, but I see no connection between aesthetics and things having value.

Paintings that sell for thousands of $$$?

...

I genuinely feel dumber after reading that tweet. Like it deformed actual knowledge I had.

They think use-value is value.

Social realism is garbage and LTV is baseless pseudoscience that can't account for the metaphysical and corporeal importance of culture and aesthetics. I'm disappointed in you lot. Has there really never been a leftist theorist who touched on the value of art without reducing it to "commodity fetishism"?

lol

Why should they give a shit about those spooks beyond explaining how they and the capitalist base interact with each other?

What a fucking retard, to say that economists aren't allowed to talk about economics because they're not talking about art

anyone concerned with "aesthetics" over tangible issues is an insufferable upper class nonce separated from the real world.

Marx (at least marx-as-translated-into-english) has a tendency to redefine terms which causes a lot of confusion when people expect the normal definition of the term to hold true. MOST of the time it's at least 90% the same as the general use so it's not so bad but LTV's meaning of value has basically nothing to do with any other meaning of value.

What does having the first edition of a work have to do with the aesthetic value of a work? He's conflating aesthetic value with economic value. Just because I can buy a used copy of Ulysses for $3 doesn't mean that the aesthetic value of Ulysses has also become $3.

...

And before you ask I am wasted. I only meant to write value once.

This. It's probably one of the biggest barriers to educating people about actual marxism rather than their preconceived notions of it.

Marx was pretty much 100% pure Jew and Ashkenazi Jews are incapable of aesthetics, what the fuck kind of Far-Rightist is this if he doesn't know this stuff.

I always thought he was a Sephardite, the family name a corruption of Castillan Marquez.

The collumn is the rate of correlation, so TSS is the most accurate but straffian and the other one are also extremely correlated

Straffian has the problem of being vulgar since value is explained by way of price but price is contingent on value, so there is no actual theory of value for straffa or neo-Ricardians that explains the suffusion of quantity and quality, only a theory of equilibrium prices


Read Hegel

Please explain "myopic ability to understand aesthetics" in a way that humans can understand.

fetishism is upstream from aesthetics

...

Tankies are philistines, who could have thought?

Only tankies like socialist realism. True socialist patricians like anything from Dada to surrealism to cubo-futurism to constructivism to neo-impressionism.
Are you serious? You have to be kidding me. Almost all art theorists and historians are leftwing. To name those who come to mind straight away and who don't fit into the Cultural Marxist paradigm of associating art with commodity fetishism - DeBord, Jorn, Vaneigem, etc etc etc. If you want absolutely no mention of commodity fetishism ever, then Proudhon, Kropotkin, Read, and Woodcock might be for you - they all wrote about art from an anarchist perspective.

what are you doing man

I was explicitly referencing Ashkenazi Jews in Soviet art to attack the tankie's Philistine assertion. I love both of their works of cinema, but they didn't really fit into my argument. They're goys.

Well Holla Forums, is he right?

interesting…

What these goons don't seem to realize is that they operate on an entire different concept of truth from everyone else.

how is this an argument?
it describes commodities that have an assembly line, where they're produced over and over again. Che Guevara t-shirts don't have any extra value just because they're "artwork" and it's because they are mass produced. Goalposts, where fucking are they?

You don't understand what commodity fetishism is. Re the LTV, there's a nice thread here full of information for you. Twitter poster doesn't understand the meaning of Marx's value, and how the value which people ascribe to art to evoke emotion is separate from economic value which is, and must be, indifferent to the emotions aroused beyond the capacity as use-values.

This guy doesn't know what "commodity fetishism" means.

Urge to gulag rising…

Well he did investigate technology, in as much as it boiled down to industrial machinery back then. Otherwise, as he means "technology" in the sense of IT, then he has a point. This putative "super-super-structure" warrants more consideration. Aesthetics has nothing to do with anything.

Muh idealism

Yes, their "guess" would be correct.

he's a thundering faggot

How is he wrong?

Another retard confusing value and market price

Commodity fetishism means perceiving commodity relations and the rules governing them not as something that is the result of human activity, but something separate, objective and independent of us.

It's fetishism in the religious meaning, i.e., attributing supernatural powers to inanimate objects, not in the sexual.

...

If you read the whole paper you'd also see that it was a much less efficient predictor, that is it needed much more information about prices to make its prediction than LTV did.

theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/30/chimpanzee-wins-10000-dollars-abstract-painting
On the other hand, there are precisely zero accounts of a chimpanzee successfully submitting a tax proposal or budget amendment.