Holla Forums doublethink thread

It's like those Marxists in the 70s that believed post-fordism was going to bring liberation of workers. Or like those desperate leftists, some of them respected public intellectuals, that now say the same thing about "sharing economy". I understand it, it's forced optimism because the reality is pretty depressing and requires some serious reevaluation. Although co-ops are much better, they can just as easily be fitted into entrepreneurial ideology.

except that is the subject theory of labour
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

no you aren't, you don't need to follow any "market force" in order to achieve self-consumption

nice meme

also

not even trying to make good memes

nice argument

I hope I'm getting trolled. This is just too much.

I could very well deal with a calculated and pragmatic stance on their little ethical capitalism meme, and it's undoubtedly preferable to the less ethical variant, but calling it socialism is going to break the sides of literally anyone who's read a fucking book ever. It also reeks of opportunism and the idealizations of their concept (if they sincerely think it's socialism) and any such program not enacted under the conscious knowledge of a struggle for actual socialism to build out of their ethical capitalism is doomed to reify some of the worst shit I could ever imagine. You'll get something even more cancerous than parecon or the Zeitgeist 'movement'.

In order to obtain this self-consumption the individual is going to have to enter the market as a seller of his labor before he is a buyer of others. And where is he going to do this, why through the coop production process. An individual who wants to obtain their self-consumption will seek to maximize their production according to the SNLT of the commodity at hand, and will engage in a market where others will do the same. Pray do tell, what are the masses of unemployed workers going to do when the majority of jobs are automated and there is an overstock of commodities with virtually no buyers?

I should stop here.

If it wasn't obvious already, this post (and the accompanying Chinese cartoon jpeg) is the decisive signal for the fact that you're so entirely uneducated on anything pertaining to political economy and have probably 'learned' all you know through Wikipedia summaries and Youtube videos. Now take a breather, head to marxists.org and libcom.org and knock yourself out. You will be doing yourself a grand favor, trust me.

Commodity fetishism is applying social power to to commodities.

It's a reference to shamanistic practices. Say, before a battle, a tribe's shaman brought out an effigy of the warrior god (a "fetish") and claimed that it carried the blessing of the divine and would lead them to victory. The tribe wins the battle and uphold the holy effigy as the reason for their victory. Of course, the object had nothing to do with it, the tribe won the battle, but they nonetheless attribute their own social power with an inanimate object.

This is commodity fetishism. At the end of the day a commodity is just an object, but the logic of capital attributes massive amounts of social power to them.

you literally have no understanding what a market is

keep trying

If you are too retarded to understand how the LTV is related to the law of value you should be the one who redirects himself to marxist.org and so on

who is he selling his labour to if he is keeping all the products of his labour and working just for his own consumption?