Alt Text

Show parent replies
i'm going insane writing a book report in n0's comment section about marx every month, it has to end here
i keep editing the second post over and over again; i hope i got it to be a good place now

the only reason why concrete labor takes place at all is to be the mediated form of abstract labor, which is the way capital gets valorized. in this way, random expenditure of human powers (i.e. mudpies) isn't even concrete labor as such,
because the expenditure is not the manifestation of abstract labor, and therefore not valorizing anything (hence why it has no exchange value).
i'm not totally happy with this last bit, because valorization is not synonymous with exchange value, but idk how else to describe it
like it still makes sense, if it was valorizing it would necessarily result in exchange values, but i feel like it confuses things