Oh my god Anarchists absolutely DESTROYED

whoa really made me think

STOP BEING SECTARIAN
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Marx and Engels were the first Stalinists

/thread

Basic Bakunin

Why anticommunist on this board use stalinist as an insult? Also where do you got the balls to call them stalinists?

if you really want to see anarkiddies btfo, read Hobbes

Around the rose hold your nose.

How exactly do anarchists solve the socialist calculation problem again?

No Fuck off. The only people I ever seem to notice calling for leftist unity are Anarkiddies. Probably because they're all so fucking insufferable that no one else on the left would ever actually want to cooperate with them.

Are you kidding? Socdems are always chiding radicals.

No way, socdems are the most dissociated from all of us.

Then you must have your head shoved up your ass, which given your flag is almost a certainty.

Have you also noticed that the only people who seem to care about doing things to effect history instead of being the exact kind of "philosopher" (and most of you wouldn't even qualify as that) that Marx was critiquing for doing nothing are also anarkiddies?

*fuck i can't type today**

Anarchists are against unjustified and unnecessary authority you twat. Hell, if one was to use the Marxist definition of the state (an organ of class rule), then we aren't even against establishing a workers state.

I'm tired of Marxists pointing to Marx quotes, pointing out how non-Marxist we are. We use different semantics because we belong to a different tradition. If you took the time to learn our semantics and our theory, then you would realize that there isn't all that much we actually disagree about. Go read a fucking book.

Mad

Yes, seeing capitalism masquerading as socialism tends to make commies mad.

you retards did neither, ever…at any point in history. Don't try to claim Leninist victories as your own when you spend the rest of the time bitching about them.

Classic fence sitting liberals, shit on everyone, faith in nobody but themselves.

This, using force to put a stop to domination of the majority by a minority is not authoritarianism, it's simply taking action to protect and expand human freedom. Authoritarianism refers to those political philosophies that do not concern themselves with human freedom. In other words, fighting against authoritarianism is not itself authoritarianism. This is literally an "ANTIFA are the REAL fascists" tier argument.

Not even a leftcom, but come the fuck on.

oh please, for a bait tier post such as this? Do I really have to go into this? its pretty elementary stuff for the READ MARX YOU OPPURTUNIST UTOPIAN brigade.

We are communists, we stand for the abolition of private property, as property is theft. Retaking what is rightfully yours, is not fucking authoritarian.

no it means, in most anarchists estimations, self management of the workforce. Also, any well read anarchist knows, that in a revolutionary situation this means a secret police and assassinations and all that other good stuff.

The point of differences is that this organisations will be answerable to the people and not the other way round.

I'm actually of the opinion that very little differentiates the revolution in 1917 Russia and Spain 1936, there was just more emphasis on self management and less time to gradually push it back like the Bolsheviks did, although in Spain the anarchist faction was much larger

Same goes for Rojava. Rojava is plenty tanky. Its not a bad thing.

i see, so how do marxists solve it given that communism refers to the hypothetical anarchist society? oh they've never once explained this? lol, greatest scam ever designed.

they are the enemy, grow a fucking spine

How will that be ensured with an organized secret police, military and other such institutions with tremendous power?

Yeah, no one has ever provided a satisfactory answer to the socialist calculation problem as far as I'm concerned.

capitalism is in part an expression of spontaneous order, like science, though it requires parasitic institutions to channel it. commies won't admit this that's why they've relied on marx's extremely round about way of saying the same thing and they'll spew any amount of garbage to deny that their state is permanent.

Isn't it possible that we could have some sort of spontaneous order with the useful information exchange mechanism of the market without such glaring wealth disparity and poverty? And without wrecking the ecosystem with unsustainable growth?

if the unions/co-ops/class party that co-ordinates production remains under directly democratic control the secret police will merely be carrying out tasks on their behalf. It is difficult to imagine such a complex organisation, that would have to remain secret from the people who control it, but I imagine it would be along the lines of the election of a independent committee who were to be informed of all of their actions all of the time, and would not divulge them unless something untoward had gone on, working on remits chosen by the workers

yeah "markets" in and of themselves aren't bad, any more than something like "replication and peer review" could be. they are just somewhat hard to conceive of outside of their historical coincidence with monetary economics and criminality.

Well, but arguably, because having resources gives you an advantage in acquiring more resources in the market, markets inherently lead to massive wealth inequality over time.

~ youtu.be/GQazJ-woQl0

it isn't zero sum nor does it need to resolve around profits, or competitive in such a way that leads to predatory accumulation. it's just a way to organize our societal interface with eachother, money being a symbolic talisman of power and nothing more.

Wow, such vague terms. Tell me fam, what authority is justified? It's this vapid bullshit that turned me off anarchism.

The authority of the bootmaker when it comes to boots.

How do you explain usury, then? In a capitalist market people can make money simply by having money and loaning it out at interest.

Found Bakunin!

I'm pretty sure you could get much the same info watching labor voucher redemption rates that you do in a capitalist market.

capitalist markets aren't "free". usury is to be abolished.

Could you please expand on this point, comrade?

Describe what sort of market you have in mind, then?

still figuring that out tbh. this isn't an easy problem, most theories get as far as "remove x cancer then hope for the best", but if there's one thing people are good at it's chasing shadows and fucking up. we only exist as a manifestation of the social nexus' inherent mechanism towards leveling illegitimate power so there's a start at least.

If revolution is authoritarian then anti-fascists are fascists.

Nice to see you can quote Bakunin. But this just illustrates the problem I have with Anarchism: the terminology is all over the fucking place, and it just causes these ridiculous arguments over semantics. "Authority is bad!" but "the authority of this guy in this specific circumstance is good." Where do parents fit in this? Teachers? What about revolutionary violence? Is that authority? Is acting authoritarian okay if you only do it against authoritarians? Do you see the problem?
Anarchist theory is always filled with exceptions, and it gives little satisfactory explanation for how an anarchist revolution wouldn't be just as "authoritarian" or whatever as any other. Of course, anarchists can always claim the moral high ground because they've never actually won a revolutionary war, and if they do and when the revolution regresses just like every other they'll go "actually that wasn't socialism". At least Marxism is fucking consistent.
By the way I'm saying this as someone who used to be an anarchist. I've read theory from both "sides" and I've found the Marxist theory far more satisfying.

ITT
Lmao why did we ever take you idiots seriously as a thing?You are a worse meme than even the bookchinites of yesteryear

Anyone can post with a flag, famalam.
Look at me, I'm a leftcom now.

you're actually mad that anarchist theorists have expressed a variety of ideas? 99% of marxists don't even understand that it's all just a smokescreen and marx was unironically trying to trick trade unionists into converting society into a giant brain.

No.
Because context is a thing. The authority of the bootmaker over boots is different than the authority of the bourgeoise over property, namely the bootmaker's authority is born of experience and knowledge while the bourgeoise authority is derived from state enforced ownership of property. We do not seek to abolish all authority in the manner that some drunk who thinks the earth is tipping over on its axis is placed on par with a scientist, we seek to abolish property and the the authority that allows property to exist, ie the state.
No it isn't. Gather self-described Marxists in a room and they'll be at each other's throats within the hour over what the USSR was and practically anything else. It is only more consistent in Anarchism in that Marxists have Marx has a foundation of theory while Anarchists do not have a figure like that, as such Capital is a central work to every Marxist while Proudhon, Bakunin, Kroptokin, Malatesta, etc. are not essential to every Anarchist.

Fuck off, anarkiddie. The real anarchists are talking here.

you poorly shrouded marxists just think you can skip a step. you're literally HIV. there's nothing marxists won't infest. communism is the most totalitarian system possible period.

anarchism has gotten closer to abolishing commodity production than all 100 of the failed Marxist states ever have.

Describe your ideal ~anarchist~ organisational system and then we'll see how it differs from communism.

describe communism.
no it isn't, i'll even help you out, it's the total nihilation of the self into what is fundamentally just a giant brain to complete hegel's system. it's the exact polar opposite of freedom.

Yes, because Capital is the central work for anarchists too (except mutualists).

So why do you even use the word? When your first statement is "I want to abolish authority, but not this kind of authority" you already start off on weak footing. You're arguing about specifics, not getting to the core of the problem. That's why I say Marxism is consistent, because it starts at the central problem - property, the mode of production - and shows how everything else is related to that central problem. Comprehensive might have been a better word to use. I didn't find anything like that in anarchism, and as you yourself say anarchism isn't united by a central theory. Which is why you see anarchists like Graeber touching on but never reaching a historical analysis of money that the original Marx bros had figured out over a century ago.
Honestly I'm not here to be a sectarian faggot. The fact of the matter is that every socialist movement, ideology, whatever has failed miserably. There's no point in continuing two century-old guys' stupid feud. I just don't like anarchist theory

capital is drivel and most irl marxists don't even bother to read it, they literally just defer to authority. basically what's happened is a bunch of young, naive, and very stoned people decided they could have their cake and eat it too without all that scary stuff. they then "grow up" and either become hardline marxists or smarmy liberals.

Not an argument, famalam

this thread is really
making
me
think

explain what "value" actually is to me then. chapter 1 volume 1. basis of the whole theory of alienated and socialized labor. none of you can even manage this, let alone keep it relevant to the situation even 50 years ago without a million constant patch jobs. yet you cling to it like it was the word, because marx is more important to you than anything else, let alone socialism or whatever. the only good marxist theory since extracts from it a couple turns of phrase, to coast on its prestige or whatever reason, and that's about it.

I'm sure there are no anarchists who actually made a proper fucking economic analysis of capitalism like Marx, so they always have to rely on that drivel or in other words: it's too hard to read :( or go with the pseudo ancap guy.

this thread is really
making
me
think>>2088474
^^^rly made me think

it describes maybe england in the 1860's kinda ok

They are all essential to any communist please don't read sectarian

How exactly is this related to you saying Capital is drivel? You still haven't given an argument.
To answer your question, there are three kinds of value: Value, Use Value, and Exchange Value (Price)
Value is the embedded labour in the commodity, though I've heard some people say that Marx used it interchangeably with exchange value
Use value is the "usefulness" or utility of the commodity. This isn't so much a defined value, since it's just how useful the commodity is to a person. Things like water and food have "high" use values even though their exchange value are fluctuating and usually pretty low, because everyone needs that shit to live.
Exchange value is the purchasing power of the good. Literally how many bananas there are to a television. The exchange value related to a given currency is its "price"

good

It signifies how through exchange the qualitative aspects of things are alienated, and from distinct use-values they became - dare I say - values

Ok, instead of "proper", imagine that I wrote "any kind of"

*become

Thread derailed. We /marx101/ now

how do they inhere in one and the same thing and why is the point to abolish not just value for exchange but value altogether?
how in the sweet name of everlasting christ do you fucking "EMBED" labor IN a commodity?
and what about uses that are quantifiable?
yes, you've heard. you didn't actually read capital. yet here you are running your mouth about it.
no it isn't.
no you can't. no amount of bananas replace a television except for a banana wholesaler with a tv he doesn't need. all goods are not interchangable. swapping around commodities at random destroys value. that quantity of bananas "replacing" a tv is a chore for pretty much everyone.

it's meant to "signify" that, but the question was for you to actually explain the meaning of this phrase. "use" is the a qualitative value. what does "becoming values" mean?

i havent seen a single poster on this board that understands marx

No, fuck off with that retarded fucking definition. All authority is unjustified and unnecessary. I have no idea how this meme got spread since all famous Anarchist theorists never talked about this retarded dichotomy and were pretty clear that authority don't real and that violent coercion was always unacceptable.

Authority is completely unacceptable on any philosophical standpoint since it's the belief that others have a moral right to force you to do something and you have a moral obligation to obey. There is no spooker spook than authority.

Please take off that flag before you continue to further misrepresent Anarchism.

The words of ignorants shouldn't turn you off Anarchism.

You're trying to conflate the two completely different definitions when Bakunin was clearly trying to differentiate them.

Stop thinking poorly-read posters are representative of Anarchist theory. The words actual Anarchist theorists use are very clearly defined. When Anarchists say authority they're not meaning fucking expertise.

THE BOOTMAKER HAS NO AUTHORITY, STOP TRYING TO CONFLATE TWO WIDELY DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS. Anarchists most definitely do advocate the abolition of all authority, Bakunin's entire point was that the "authority" of the bootmaker isn't any actual authority at all and as such there's no desire to abolish his position. If you think authority is necessary or justified then stop calling yourself a fucking Anarchist.

whoa really activates the almonds

Well I'm gonna give you the 101
Exchange value is a reflection of the real Value. I say that some people say he used the two terms interchangeably because the only value that is visible is exchange value, some people interpret it in different ways. Labour is embedded in a commodity in that the production of a commodity, or rather making a commodity of less value (like wool) into a commodity of higher value (a sweater) requires labour. This is why labour is the source of value (in capitalism, Marx notes that nature is a source of use values - water is not created by labour.) It's important to not that all these values only apply in exchange. A mode of production without exchange has only use values
Use "value" is not quantifiable. How would you quantify the value of water? When it is quantifiable, it is as a source of exchange values, that is its use it that it makes you money.
As for the last part, you misunderstand the point of exchange values. You obviously can't buy a tv with bananas, but both commodities have exchange values that can be compared. This idea can be traced back to Smith's myth of barter, he thought that before money was invented people exchanged goods for their exchange values, 20 bushels of wheat for a cow, etc. This in modern eyes is unfeasible, and barter hasn't really been shown to have appeared anywhere, but it is a reflection of the mechanics of capitalism devoid of currency
Seriously fam, read a book

Correction: barter hasn't been shown to have existed within a community. Barter has sometimes existed between communities (say, two tribes), but any advanced trade needs some sort of currency, a commodity that a large trader will always accept, whether its Roman denarii or furs in colonial canada

That wasn't the point you retard. The point was there is no anarchist analogue to Marx that is considered to have set the framework of the ideology.

I rarely do because of confusion like that in this thread. Unfortunately language was significantly different in the 19th century and I can't force anarco-grandpas to write their shit clearly and in english.
Which is why my first statement is "I want to abolish property and the state", which while not being absolutely clear is easier to understand than authority and easier to explain without getting into this autism.
Arguing over specifics is what the left has been doing for the past century and a half. We know the core of the problem is property and capitalism, there is no leftist who does not accept this.
And it ceases to be consistent after Marx, which is why Marxist infighting is as common as Marxists fighting Anarchists. It is certainly not comprehensive either, else there would not have been so many revisions of Marx when the first proletarian revolution did not go as expected. You can not honestly looks at the wildly different conclusions armchairs and tankies draw from Marx and call that consistent fam.

Stop being such a faggot. The bootmaker has expertise but not authority, unfortunately these words can be used interchangeably and doing so gets us into retarded discussions like this thread over whether or not a teacher has authority or whether it's authoritarian for me to choke my gf while fucking her. Call it whatever is easiest to get the message across, whether that is authority, property, the state, raspberry barbecue sauce, or whatever.

All of the historical examples of anarchism are as I describe them more or less. It wsn't instant peaceful utopia, it took place in the middle of bloody civil wars and always has, what do you really expect? You can't fight nazis without some secrecy and brutality.

why are marxists always so smug no matter how many times they get dragged thru the coals on their own words?
how is it a "reflection"? how is one more "real" than the other? you're not explaining actual mechanisms, processes, causal structures, physical relationships, anything based in you know, concrete, material reality, or even critical self-description of the origins and progression of your thoughts (what dialectic is). you're just using empty phraseology as if a cheap metaphor is good enough. when this is the lynchpin of everything else in marx.
because you didn't read capital. you got caught, yet it doesn't seem to phase you, you'll just keep on talking shit forever. like most marxists you can't even be arsed opening your holy book before rabidly defending it.
what do you mean "visible"? and it isn't actually you moron.
who? who's right? what different ways?
it's inarguable that labor is related to the economy, and tautologically true that it wouldn't be used to directly degrade value. but what you haven't done is shown how it makes any sense at all to say that labor is now EMBEDDED IN that commodity. this is absolutely critical to the whole theory.
what about automated production lines? what about open source software? what about SERVICES you filthy marxist ape?
what "mode" of production has ever existed without exchange?
it's called the quantity of water that is useful to you at that time (and not another), you tend to measure this in volume, with a well-defined defined baseline for human survival. utility is such a multifarious and nebulous concept it barely makes any sense at all, and usefulness in life is filled with numbers and amounts that are relatable to their economic worth in the most convoluted way if even at all. marx's real point is that money is that commodity exchangeable for all other commodities (which is circularly required for his idea of exchange to make sense), making it the carrier of the unquantifiable made quantity.
lmao. "reflection" of the "mechanics" of a hypothetical "capitalism" WITHOUT currency, based on "historical material" analysis of an epoch that never existed? it's a thought experiment and one that breaks down at anything beyond the hyper simplistic picture marx had developed from looking at factories and guilds in london 150 years ago.
basically the only thing i agree with hoppe on is commies have to be sacrificed before we can be free.

i wonder when i stopped having any anarchist inclinations. (i've never considered myself an anarchist, but there was something there long ago.)
i mean, i feel like it's a natural part of being indoctrinated into the internet and imageboards in general, that you're supposed to maintain that anti-authoritarian stance but i've drifted quite a lot. i'm not sure if it's seeing the results of internet pseudo-ancapery, or if i've just weighted nationalised railways really highly, or what. i think perhaps more than anything it's a transition away from "how do i stop others bothering me [by acting against me]" in the abstract, i.e. "by removing their authority" towards "how do i stop others bothering me [by doing things i dislike]", or in imageboard terms from being a full blown free-speech principle type to a "mods should ban for low post quality" type, with an additional adjunct of going from antipathetic to ancaps to red-eyes-and-smoke-from-ears.

i blog, but perhaps others may enjoy the prompting to consider their own ideological development.

Eat shit, you're a worthless 13 year old who blew in from MySpace who thinks anarchism is kicking over trashcans and listening to Three Days Grace. Either read some Kropotkin or fuck off, faggot.

the amazing thing about marxism is, world superpowers were built on the altar of actually trying to extinguish Value, the post-marxist theories that turned modern leftism into a scene from Bosch and a front for evil were originally based on trying to phenomenologize Value and/or achieve communism through other means (via sourcing alternative consciousnesses to class), current year legacy marxists like Dauve still talk about Value in basically the same terms, there are unironically Marxist parties with power to this day. But if the only conceivable meaning to communism is somehow related to "unalienated" activity by "socializing" all of it in the abstract but quite literal hive mind/World-ghost due to the "alienation" supposedly caused by Value, which is a concept that never even made a lick of sense at all. As exemplified by the fact that no one on this board, who do nothing but study, think about and discuss marxism all day every day, can actually expand on it beyond the talking points, revealing they don't think, merely repeat. Communism is not a veritable flavor of anarchism that might be delusionally impractical to achieve but worth a try or could yet nevertheless exist in some possible world, it's not even just impossible, it doesn't even have enough internal rational content to apply the terms possible or impossible to it. It's in fact completely meaningless, literally fucking Nothing, and quite obviously so from the start (literally chapter 1 volume 1). QED. fucking defend yourselves.

ok

I might be a retard for being an anarchist, but anti-anarchists have a diet consisting primarily of lead paint chips.

ok.

that wasn't addressed to you, u mongoloid. le bread man may have had attached his own idea to the word "communism" but people only ever really mean marxism by it.

I didn't say we're the same. We obviously disagree about how the revolution will come about, but the crux of our disagreement isn't whether or not we should build a state, like so many would have you believe. It has to do with how the government should be organized, and what organizational attributes constitute a state.

Go read some Pannekoek or even Lenin's later work (the State and Revolution, The April Thesis) and tell me exactly what is in there that you disagree with.

false considering most of you dont read Capital. actually being able to discuss a book is the only thing that proves you're not faking. i clearly know about the classic debates about the state and government. issue is, "DotP" and "transitory periods" etc are meaningless constructs too. see above. the anarchists mistake was naively believing (besides ever trusting a marxist in general) that these rhetorical devices had anything substantial internal to them that they could attach anything to except their own imagination.

Suuuure…

Because it reflects the real value, which is defined by the labour hours. The exchange value is anchored by the "real" (labour) value, because the equilibrium price of a given commodity is equal to the cost of production of that commodity, and since in capitalism labour is the source of all value, that cost can be equated to labour hours (or the socially necessary labour time). The reason exchange value is anchored around the equilibrium price is due to market forces. When the price of the commodity is higher than the cost of production, that drives investment that lowers the price of the commodity until you have an oversupply of the commodity that makes production unprofitable, which drives the price up as production inevitably decreases. The price swings around the equilibrium price like a pendulum. This obviously assumes that the market isn't controlled by a monopoly or cartel or whatever, which Marx and Engels were definitely aware of - Capital has a tendency to centralise in order to escape the "anarchy of the market".
Exchange value is plainly visible, it's shown in nice numbers on a little tag on the sweater you buy at the clothes store. Use Value and Value aren't visible because one is a subjective value that is not quantifiable and the other is a constant that the Exchange Value fluctuates around. You're not gonna see a number quantifying those anywhere.
People on here have different ideas of what Marx meant by Value. That's it. I don't know who's right or whatever, you're not gonna find any great scholars on Marx on a Cantonese Etch-a-sketch board, I'm just explaining Marxist concepts to you as best I can because its plain to see that you don't know shit about them.
Reduces the SNLT. If production is fully automated Capitalism falls apart
Not commodified
Services are sold as commodities. The greatest example of this is wage labour. You sell hours of your labour power for a wage. Similarly hours (or some quantity or whatever) of a service are sold to the consumer of the service. Seriously fam you don't even need to read Capital to know this.
Exchange has existed since property, since we started being able to produce more for ourselves than we needed, which is what enabled the first mode of production, slavery, since you could then force someone to work for you and reap the benefits of the surplus they created on top of what you yourself did. Before that there wes only Use Value, since both Exchange Value and Value require exchange. The Socialist Mode of Production, since it abolishes property and the value form, has only use values and produces for use.
Those are just quantities of an item, not quantities of value. Utility is a nebulous concept, which is why it is not quantifiable. This is also why all the "economists" who think prices are dictated by how much you want a good are idiots
Your second point is literally just you proving my point that exchange value is the only quantifiable form of value and advanced exchange needs money.
Holy shit fam how thick are you? In my quote I literally explain that Smith's myth of barter was him inventing a hypothetical version of capitalism without currency, which I then say is unfeasible and proven to be so. Exchange value is quantified as the relative exchange values between commodities - I give the example of bananas and TV's. The exchange value of a commodity relative to a currency is the price of the commodity. Currency in turn has an exchange value relative to other currencies (also known as exchange rate, how many pesos there are to a dollar, literally a rewording of my former example that you dismissed).
Nigga you dumb

...

nope. see. all that for nothing. how come marxists can't even get seem to ever get the BASICS right? what you're doing now, this is one of the first scripts you all have to learn and you still fucked it up.

look, what you've dutifully plodded through here by rote is entirely beside the whole point of marxism and nowhere near what i was asking you to actually think about/through yourself, then make some kind of effort to speak out on in your own tongue, just any sign of rudimentary sentience really. should go without saying but there is a massive difference between memorizing and understanding. contrarily, it seems you didn't reason your own way through any of these notions which do comprise only the outermost crust of superficiality, the so-called vulgar economism, and this much is clear as we can see by your particularly clumsy, wooden deployment of the ricardian apparatus here, with the logical disconnects e.g. where you patched in claims about the social labor time. is this really what you think materialist dialectics is supposed to be? how could you be inspired by such a bland and sterile account? but of course, you somehow convinced yourself you're the "educator" in this scenario. fucking marxists i swear to god you're all the same every last one to the man it's like uncanny.

I have literally never said that, famalam. Here's what I said
In other words
If you can't even read a fucking post on an indonesian crayon drawing board, how the fuck do you expect anyone to believe you've read Marx?

...

Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Cockshott would have a word with you.

Marx was screeching about how atheoretical Bakunin was back then, even though, as we can see, the theory as interpreted by basically everyone is mutually exclusive gibberish, and all they can do about this is squeal about who has read Marx more with the same kind of angry polemics he was notorious for, it's more about following in his divine example I guess.

Price is just a specific kind of exchange value. The price tag could just as well be in bananas or TV's if they were declared currencies. Currencies are commodities. That's why in my first post I called it "Exchange Value (Price)". From the price (the exchange value of commodity relative to currency), you can calculate the exchange value between any commodity. Here's an example
It's fucking math. You can even do it in the reverse order, just to show that currencies are no different from any other commodity, again because it's fucking math.
While most transactions are done with currency, Marx defined Exchange Value as he did to show that the mechanics are the same for every commodity, and this is important when you look at exchange between currencies, or in the case of countertrade.
Seriously, fam, you'd understand this if you just read Wage Labour and Capital. This is basic stuff

Shitpost flag

...

or employ sap monkey D:

why these in particular? it's unnecessarily comical.

all you've read clearly.

exchange value is roughly equivalent to value at least in capital 1 and 2, in 3 it's more complicated. what is value? it's labor cost, representing "abstract human labor", subtracted from the total aggregate labor of society (or the subsystem of it in question). what it doesn't stand in such a close relation to is price, you're unaware of the whole inner logic of the price-determination system which gets you closer to the actual point. it's a theory about all of society and everything in it, through time, including the thoughts in your brain.

your static little toy model is garbage, and in no way equips you to make sweeping claims about automation or anything in political economy at all really. it's been a waste of time talking to you, but it's quite illustrative of generic marxist hubris. or is it masochism? why are you doing this to yourself?

Just to demonstrate that it can be literally any commodity
Funny, because I've explained to you several times why exchange value is "roughly equivalent to value". You've repeatedly demonstrated that you misunderstand even the most basic Marxist terminology, which is why I've been trying to explain it to you. Seriously, fam, you can stop pretending with that "I am very smart" bullshit. We all know you're a brainlet.

where? you've been trotting out these mechanistic bastardizations in a shitter shattered way and my eyes may have glazed over, but i doubt it.

you don't even grasp the nature of my VERY SIMPLE lines of questioning. how is that "understanding"? what's worse is you don't even seem to give a shit that you don't get it at all.

Everywhere, famalam. You don't understand automation, you don't understand commodification, you don't understand equilibrium prices, you don't understand what a currency is, and you don't even understand what value is (hell, you asked me what it is). This whole argument started with you saying that capital is "drivel". I asked you to give an argument for why it is drivel, but you've done nothing but restate your conclusion with slightly different wording and show just how little you know of even the most babby tier Marxist theory. I've been trotting out "these mechanistic bastardization" because it's plain to see you don't understand them. And you kinda have to understand what Use Value and Exchange Value is in order to get to the fun dialectics part. It's usually a good idea to read a book before you criticise it, and this entire thread shows you haven't, or at least you have read it so poorly you might as well not have read it.

let me put it this way, what do you think the difference between a model inside your mind and objective, material, reality is? by what procedure have you determined your model is preferable to ricardo, sraffa, keynes, or any modern economic school, and somehow steps outside of your idiosyncratic way of slicing up and parsing a set of categories about reality in your head to now become in a critical way just identical with material reality, while everyone else is an idealist or bourgeois shill? do you really have no idea what fundamental, central, essential importance value has through all marxist theory, including what communism is even supposed to be and what we can say about it in advance at all?

Fam, I don't have to prove why Marx is better than all the others. You're the one who made the claim. I've just been explaining the definitions to you.

no, you've very carefully evaded the real questions and created a distraction. when i asked what value IS, this is very different to asking what it DOES in a externalized functionalistic sense. you show no signs of comprehending any of that, or even why it might matter. the purpose of the other questioning was to try force you to actually think through some of this yourself, rather than just repeating what you've heard. to show YOUR thought process, your ability to follow this all through, not just try prove you've read some shit, user, who fucking cares?

...

you just keep screeching that i don't know this i don't know that. besides you made several basic mistakes, WLC isn't even consistent with capital, and you're playing it off as a mathematically rigorous and precise theory which it is not and wasn't intended to be but rather an account of capitalism as a social process in general. the purpose of the other question isn't for you to prove marx is the best, but to give your logic for determining the difference between an abstraction and a materialist account of reality, and not just reality, the way your own thoughts about that reality are filtered.

why did you spend so long evading it and trying to catch me out then? why so insecure?

Sorry fam, but I can't take any of your claims seriously unless you actually SHOW how it's inconsistent
Because you asked me what value is, famalam, and it seemed like you didn't quite understand it when I told you the first time, and the second time, and the third time. Most people wouldn't be half as patient, hence why I'm the only one who has bothered to reply to you.
I do understand quite well that Marxism is more than just the Law of Value and the labour theory, famalam, but they are kinda important for understanding the rest of Marxist theory, and it seems to me that you don't understand either.
Note that you still haven't given an argument for why Capital is drivel beyond "muh ebul mechanistic Marxists". Chop chop.

you ain't know shit bout hegel, this "giant brain" is still your brain, you're just meant to be self-conscious about how it works

why do you think you i was asking you for a gross oversimplification and not the actual nature of the commodity form and value form as ABSTRACT HUMAN LABOR in ACTUAL reality? why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the true nature of the question while doing everything in your power to weasel around it and try "prove" my ignorance by simply repeating it over and over? there is no aggregate total of social labor in reality, there are no averages, reality doesn't DO math calculations itself, you haven't shown how these are anything but pure abstractions in a model that therefore has NO MATERIAL content = vulgar economics/pure idealism.

i know no one can do it. your attempt is pitiful.

WLC doesn't include the general rate of profit, organic compositions of capital, or any of the other machinery so developed in Capital, and uses conflicting terminology to it.

my argument is it's drivel because marxists don't even agree on what it says. here you thinking you're qualified to speak as an expert when all you can do is try regurgitate Marx's extremely simplistic model from the 1840's, that Engels only republished as a pamphlet for worker agitation, factory workers in that time weren't expected to be academic geniuses. Capital is this giant superstructure overlaying very simple processes that has inspired endless scholasticism and not much insight. as we've seen with your lack of consideration for even how your "muh definitions" are circular or work out temporally.

yes you're the hive and the hive is you. how do you "know how it works" without subsuming every other individual's consciousness, which includes their model of how it works which they'll act upon and so forth? ultimately requiring "infinite capacity for knowledge" as engels thought, or the reduction of all individuality to nearly nothing, just a role in an abstract schema. kinda like DiaMat except proxied through the planning committees.

Why does the fact that individuals are part of a broader process make you so mad? Furthermore, why do you think simply acknowledging the existence of this process somehow negates the existence of individuals? We're systems, and the world is a system.

further marx refers to commodities specifically only as goods in WLC and as far as i remember he barely considers services at all - mainly focusing on industrial production of goods, he refers to "costs of production" (a classical economics terminology he later abandons in favor of "prices of production") as directly equivalent to labor measured in time without profit and therefore represent an average when you cancel market fluctuations, but this is markedly complexified by the processes Marx details in Capital. when you make claims such as this, such as about automation (or mechanization as Marx called it), how about instead of blurting something out, you point me to the correct passages in Capital to back up your claims that: you've not only read it, but understand it systematically, and are not amending your own ideas from later discussions (therefore NOT actually in Capital) or your ass? so that we're both working with at least the same model. you presented a bullshit model, and i was poking holes in it to try get you to elaborate YOUR reasoning - showing that you actually can see how this all fits together in your mind, then your maneuver is simple: just to switch back to deferring to marx's authority and claiming i don't understand marx, when what i'm trying to understand is YOU: the mind of the marxist. it's far more interesting to me what the actual marxists have done with the theory. as you can see with TSSI debates, there isn't even remotely a consensus on that, which refers directly to the price determination system, the notorious "transformation problem" (which I'm not actually paricularly interested in here), systematic subsidiarity, and the way prices refer to the future and past at the same time "slice" under consideration and so on.

i'm not quizzing you on your knowledge of marx. that's beside the point.

everyone has a model of the world as a system in their head. obviously i do, you do and so on. that's not what the issue is here. try at least consider what i mean by the threat of infinite regress in your proposed "solution" (harmonize all models and perfect them).

*only as goods besides commodity labor

A vicious and brutal discussion. But one worth having. Bump.

stop being so fucking undialectical your fucking retarded leftcum

When it's my authority

it's amazing to watch how marxists project. when they're always accusing everyone of being ignorant, unrealistic and irrational when it's quite obvious it's based on a few elementary fallacies and tautologies, all the way through. and because "value" actually is just a contentless artifact of their theory, a leftover X, so too is communism. the rest is rhetoric and the suggestiveness of empty placeholder labels that do no more than refer to their interrelationships in the purely abstract, implying meaning but having no sense or reference in the reality they claim to have reached unmediated union with, while arguing that their imagination and the world are just one and the same. it's unsurprising they can't grasp the difference between syntax and semantics, or what a model is. no wonder they always have to resort to forcibly imposing the "correct" political line by any and all means with results predictably approximating insanity. it requires the total decomposition of a functional, reasonable mind to perpetuate itself, like a virus that causes brain tumors.

this mealy mouthed faggot was going on about use and exchange value and prices and "currency" when it's obvious i was referring to "value" when used on its own in marxist thought, which he'd know if he'd read beyond a blurb. they don't care though. they're all frauds, it's not anti-capitalism, it's a malignant cult which uses anti-capitalism to recruit to accomplish the resolution of their own psychopathology evident in this thread. how it ever got the reputation of an intellectual movement is almost beyond all comprehension. it's the most anti-intellectual movement of all time, and basically all their theorists are either the worst tyrants in human history, the literally brainwashed sycophants they put in place after killing or imprisoning everyone capable of indepedent thought, or very well catered for elite employees of the bourgeois state in the epicenters of capitalism (hell engels was literally bourgeoisie).

we aren't so different socdem. take that as you will little brother

the problem with social markets is humans. Tito did nothing wrong!

how would you go about abolishing unjustified authority without proper theory and praxis. Do you want another repetition of Mao's PRC?

Friedrich "violence is the same thing as authority" Engels

...

you all play innocent now but your intestines should be your noose.

as for you, you're nothing but white noise. i'm not sure exactly what's wrong with your brain (besides marxism), but for those of you following along who actually capable of having the occasional non-retarded thought, to recap:

Capital volume 1 chapter 1:

crystals of social substance and congelations of homogeneous human labor don't exist, they aren't real, they aren't material, they can't be "embodied" in commodities nor can they be the "social substance" of "exchange values". that's what Value is, or is supposed to be.

That is to say, that Bakunin was unable to understand that:

1. The State is a tool of class oppression.
2. Capitalist state must be destroyed.
3. Dictatorship of the proletariat is stablished.
4. Now capitalists are opressed by the new proletariat state.
5. There is another oppression then: oppression against capitalist class.

So screaming against "new oppressive ruling caste with a dangerously powerful state" it's just not understanding anyhing. Bakunin, a capitalist supporter.

That's why Bakunin after being intellectually humiliated on a constant basis, he only dedicated himself to boycotting the International as the conspirator he was.

Trotskist critiques are in a different way.

Kinda true.

was marx imprecise with his words?

i think not, Lenin in "Karl Marx" quotes him from Contribution to Critique of Political Economy here:

Recently, here's Dauve:
no it doesn't actually do any of this, it's a useful fiction created in the mind. this is critical btw, for the whole rest of everything in the theory. this exact juncture where it leaves your mind and is said to take on its own existence, but this is fantasy, an illusion. it's a category error.

you sir, are a fucking idiot

Except that >capitalism is finished!

All correct.

So, people other than you.

you're like the burgers i see arguing that vietnam was actually a successful mission. here's a question, did you pull the wings off flies when you were a child? how deep on the spectrum are you / 10?

nice comeback. are you starting to realize how it's all over for you? how deep in denial are you right now? this literally refutes all of marxism.

Can't see the way to reach that point. Quite confusing while I said that's incorrect:

Maybe you have a economistic and deterministic point of view.

0 arguments on this

I'm not even who you've been arguing with. I've just been reading your responses and it looks like you have the twin misfortunes of being both dumb as hell and convinced that you're right.

why can't you give an argument then?

this is why i'm gloating. look at this thread, nothing but distractions.

the sole mission was to overthrow capitalism. clearly we live under capitalism, stronger and worse than ever. in no small part because of your freak show forcing it to double down. russia is run by a mafia who basically have access to all the nukes now. how does this seem like cause for self congratulation to you?

How many times I must repeat that it doesn't seem like cause for congratulation? As I said,

Is wrong.

Also that point you talking now has nothing to do with the matter treated by Bakunin.

because what he said was true, your plan was a pile of shit. you have no motivation for thinking marx won the debate except your own perpetual need to choke on his dick. that's it. there's nothing else to it. why don't you go ahead and prove that the whole theory even makes ANY sense outside of a footnote to Ricardo. that's the real matter of the thread, that you'll all evade forever, because it cannot be done.