Alt Text



to defend indirect engagement for a moment: partly it's because i think squabbling can sometimes preclude the full expression and development of one's own perspective, and partially it's a matter of some positions best being best expressed in the tone "try thinking of it this way"
richard rorty, contingency, irony, solidarity, pg. 9
This sort of philosophy does not work piece by piece, analyzing concept 11fter concept, or testing thesis after thesis. Rather, it works holistically and pragmatically. It says things like "try thinking of it this way" - or more specifically, "try to ignore the apparently futile traditional questions by substituting the following new and possibly interesting questions." It does not pretend to have a better candidate for doing the same old things which we did when we spoke in the old way. Rather, it suggests that we might want to stop doing those things and do something else. But it does not argue for this suggestion on the basis of antecedent criteria common to the old and the new language games. For just insofar as the new language really is new, there will be no such criteria. Conforming to my own precepts, I am not going to offer arguments against the vocabulary I want to replace. Instead, I am going to try to make the vocabulary I favor look attractive by showing how it may be u11ed to describe a variety of topics
1 replies


i didn't think i'd make it this far
pr . .. ..etty.. .

marx's value theory is not trying to establish an operational standard for price at all, it's explaining the process of equalization of different forms of labor that actually take place
https://x.com/PoliticsWillow/status/1832259354587783168
marx, capital volume 1, pg 197
If the conditions of production, or the productivity oflabour, remain constant, the same amount of social labour-time must be expended on the reproduction of a quarter of wheat, both before and after the change in price. This situation is not dependent either on the will of the wheat producer or on that of the owners of the other commodities. The magnitude of the value of a commodity therefore expresses a necessary relation to social labour-time which is inherent in the proces by which its value is created. With the transformation of the magnitude of value into the price this necessary relation appears as the exchange-ratio between a single commodity and the money commodity which exists outside it. This relation, however, may express both the magnitude of value of the commodity and the greater or lesser quantity of money for which it can be sold under the given circumstances. The possibility, therefore, of a quantitative incongruity between price and magnitude of value, i.e. the possibility that the price may diverge from the magnitude of value, is inherent in the price-form itself. This is not a defect, but, on the contrary, it makes this form the adequate one for a mode of production whose laws can only assert themselves as blindly operating averages between constant irregularities.
The price-form, however, is not only compatible with the possibility of a quantitative incongruity between magnitude of value and price, i.e. between the magnitude of value and its own expression in money, but it may also harbour a qualitative contradiction, with the result that price ceases altogether to express value, despite the fact that money is nothing but the value-form of commodities.


IT IS OUR TASK TO ANALYZE THE LAWS OF SOCIAL EQUALIZATION SLUG
Isaak Illich Rubin, Essays on Marx's Theory of Value, page 169
With this interpretation of the labor theory of value, one cannot deny the fact that one h o u r of the jeweller's labor and four hours of the shoemaker's labor represent, from a physiological point of view, unequal quantities of labor. Every a t t e m p t to represent one h o u r of qualified labor as physiologically condensed labor and equal, in terms of energy, to several hours of simple labor, seems hopeless and methodologically incorrect. Qualified labor is, in fact, condensed, multiplied, potential labor; it is not physiologically, but socially condensed. The labor theory of value does not affirm the physiological equality but the social equalization of labor which, in turn, of course takes place on the basis of properties which characterize labor f r o m the material-technical and physiological aspects (see the end of the previous chapter). On the market, products are not exchanged in terms of equal, but of equalized quantities of labor. It is our task to analyze the laws of the social equalization of various f o r m s of labor in the process of social distribution of labor. If these laws explain the causes of the equalization of one hour of the jeweller's labor with four hours of the unquali- fied worker's labor, then our problem is solved, irrespective of the physiological equality or inequality of these socially equalized quantities of labor. The second objection of Marx's critics assigns to economic theory a task which is in no way proper to it: to find a standard of value which would make it operationally possible to compare different kinds of labor with each other. However, the theory of value is not concerned with the analysis or search for an operational standard of equalization; it seeks a causal explanation of the objective process of equalization of different forms of labor which actually takes place in a commodity capitalist society.

like bro i'm cumming all over my keyboard rn
Isaak Illich Rubin, Essays on Marx's Theory of Value, page 68
In a primitive communistic community, or in a feudal village, the product of labor has "value" (tsennost) in the sense of utility, use value, but it does not have "value" (stoimost). The product acquires value (stoimostj only in conditions where it is produced specifically for sale and acquires, on the market, an objective and exact evaluation which equalizes it (through m o n e y ) with all other commodities and gives it the property of being exchangeable for any other commodity. In other words, a determined form of economy (commodity economy), a determined form of organization of labor through separate, privately-owned enterprises, are assumed. Labor does n o t , in itself, give value to the product, b u t only that labor which is organized in a determined social form (in the form of a commodity economy). If producers are related to each other as formally independent organizers of economic activity and as autonomous commodity producers, then the values of their labor confront each other on the market as "values." The equality of commodity producers as organizers of individual economic units and as contractors of production relations of exchange, is expressed in equality among the products of labor as values. The value of tilings expresses a determined type of production relations among people. If the product of labor acquires value only in a determined social f o r m of organization of labor, then value does not represent a " property " of the product of labor, but a determined "social form" or "social function" which the product of labor fulfills as a connecting link between dissociated commodity producers, as
1 replies


thank u diza, very cool
diza post with spinner forever
centuria sunday


old willow skeets that never saw the light of day
willow @dreary.bsky.social 1m
minarchist who thinks the government's only role should be to provide a big ass server farm with no front-end and The People's API
who needs roads when you can have CDNs
wait im just describing free aws i'm retarded
7/24/24 8:37 PM

istg i’m not doing this on purpose, people keep coming after me
@marzenie there is no central claim its just a
comprehensive analysis of what economic ...
zeeb Today at 17:10
ok,, i am not sure. i am only on part 3 here https://www.youtube.com/playlist?
list=PLfqdvDnX3|bAGzd770mJOFyRI4Khz50U
i think willow would know a lot about this, @willow sorry if you do not want the ping. you do not have to respond.
zeeb Today at 17:51
and also didn't have nice things to say about the utilitarians of their day either
I want to see this
https://philpapers.org/rec/BREMCO-2cant
find the full thing
G. G. Brenkert, Marx's
Critique of Utilitarianism -
PhilPapers
willow Today at 17:55
here's an excerpt from capital lol
[capital pg 758-759 about bentham]
zeeb Today at 17:48
okay, thanks that changes things quite a bit. i just have to learn more about it to have a well informed take.
critique of the gotha programme
I want to check this now
willow Today at 17:55
here's an excerpt from capital lol
Classical political economy has always liked to conceive social capital as a fixed magnitude of a fixed degree of efficiency. But this prejudice was first established as a dogma by the arch-philistine, Jeremy
Bentham, that soberly pedantic and heavy-footed oracle of the 'common sense' of the nineteenth-century bourgeoisie. so entham is among philosophers what Martin Tupper* is among poets.
Both could only have been manufactured in England.»
51. Bentham is a purely English pbenomenon.
Not even excepting our own
Christian Wolff,* in no time and in no country has the most
homespun manufacturer of commonplaces ever strutted about in so self-
satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery made by Bentham, He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvetius and other Frenchmen had said with wit and ingenuity in the eighteenth century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must investigate the nature of dogs. This nature is not
• Christian Wolff (1679-1754) was a German philosopber and mathe-matician, a disciple of Leibniz. His philosophy was in fact a common-sense adaptation and watering down of Leibniz's ideas, and it beld the feld in
Germany from the 1730s until Kant's time.
• Martin Tupper (1810-89) was an English man of letters and poet. His ame in Victorian times rested on his Proverbial Philosophy (1838-67), a lons series of commonplace didactic moralizings in blank verse.
The Transformation of Surplus-Value into Capital 759
This dogma in fact renders the commonest phenomena of the production process, for instance its sudden expansions and con-actions, and even accumulation itself, absolutely incompreher sible.

zeeb Today at 17:55
thats hilarious, its scathing. they hate him.
Imao!

This is a post by another user.

View in bsky.app
1 replies

i know i'm being that guy again but geuss says the same thing in that volume hehe
raymond geuss, "outside ethics" in outside ethics, pg 56
Adorno held that advanced societies in the modern world were closed, total institutions that were radically implicated in evil. In such societies, no action could be, as it were, fully innocent,39 and consequently demands that philosophy be connected with any kind of injunction to perform specific actions are themselves both forms of repression and an incitement to evil. Any attempt on the part of the individual to consider what he or she as an individual ought to do is a completely pointless exercise, and the only possibility remaining to us is to continue to reflect on the infinitely complex and subtle ways in which the falsity of the world as a whole poisons the possibilities of genuinely beneficial individual action and individual happiness. All that is left to us is a doomed attempt to maintain shreds of our subjectivity and spontaneity before they are finally crushed (like everything else), and to cultivate reflection so as to understand as fully as possible the complex structure of the evil in which we are necessarily implicated, no matter how we act. Beyond that we can have only a messianic hope in a total transformation of the society in which we live. This hope, however, would be for something that might come from outside the present and change our world utterly, that is, it is a hope for something that cannot even in principle be brought about by anything we could do.

i often come back to thinking about this line from geuss when my bfs lapse
raymond geuss, outside ethics, "on the usefulness and uselessness of religious illusion", pg. 152
fear of instrumental reason. In all three of these respects it shows itself to be very similar to well-known properties of archaic religions. In contrast, philosophers who see themselves as the successors of Nietzsche and Foucault have no generalized fear of instrumental reason. They are willing to treat the liberal subject as one good among others, not as a fetish surrounded by a number of taboos. Finally, they have little interest in the metaphysical need except as an object of historical curiosity. This is the reason so many of our contemporaries believe that Nietzsche and Foucault are the true “progressive” heirs of the Enlightenment, whereas the representatives of the Critical Theory often run the risk, to modify a phrase of Nietzsche’s, of choking while remasticating theological absurdities, or, like Habermas, of becoming the conformist defenders of the liberal social order in which we are at the moment forced to live. It must be recognized that the final demise of religion in Western societies, so confidently predicted for the past two hundred fifty years, has not yet taken place, but there seems little reason to congratulate ourselves on this. If anything, religious belief in 2005 would have to be even more wilfully obscurantist than it was in 1805 because it requires active suppression of so much of humanity’s accumulated stock of knowledge and lacks the institutional support that was still intact in much of Europe in the nineteenth century. It is hard to see what the compensating benefits could be, even if one presupposes the widest and least utilitarian sense of “benefit.”
1 replies


it's an easy jab from diderot but this one is funny
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/diderot/1769/conversation.htm
Denis Diderot, Conversation Between D'Alembert and Diderot
produces intestines; it is an animal. This animal moves, struggles, cries out; I hear its cries through the shell; it becomes covered with down; it sees. The weight of its head, shaking about, brings its beak constantly up against the inner wall of its prison; now the wall is broken; it comes out, it walks about, flies, grows angry, runs away, comes near again, complains, suffers, loves, desires, enjoys; it has the same affections as yourself, it performs the same actions. Are you going to assert with Descartes that it is a purely imitative machine? Little children will laugh at you, and philosophers will retort that if this be a machine then you, too, are a machine. If you admit that between the animal and yourself the difference is merely one of organisation, you will be showing good sense and reason, you will be honest;

my life is so awesome rn. i'm playing voxelibre, listening to gillian rose, and drinking mint tea. we are so back
voxelibre waterfall :D
installed thru luanti client
listening to mourning becomes the law: philosophy and representation
just finished JM Bernstein "where is the cross?" which was super cool

This is a post by another user.

View in bsky.app

an aside but the lenin quote is probably a misattribution, tho interestingly marx has a letter where he says something similar
Marx in a letter to Engels. London, 9 April 1863

https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1863/letters/63_04_09.htm

Source: MECW, Volume 41, p. 466;
First published: abridged in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Stuttgart, 1913 and in full in MEGA, Berlin, 1930.

Only your small-minded German philistine who measures world history by the ell and by what he happens to think are 'interesting news items', could regard 20 years as more than a day where major developments of this kind are concerned, though these may be again succeeded by days into which 20 years are compressed.

10 million curses to Lawrence & Wishart btw for enforcing copyright on MECW
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/410.htm

For a few more similar quotes and investigation:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/07/13/decades-weeks


as a final reminder
labor-power salesperson @nobodydrove
There was only one Marxist, and he died on the armchair

https://x.com/nobodydrove/status/1835521155786223871


i knew you’d get it
Leon Trotsky - What Is National Socialism?
Not every exasperated petty bourgeois could have become Hitler, but a particle of Hitler is lodged in every exasperated petty bourgeois.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm

alt text backfill (this is an all-timer tbh)
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx - Estranged Labour
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

screenshot underneath of “ComfyNeet - What it was like working my first McJob ever (it sucked)” with transcript
https://youtu.be/ZItl08k3k1g

they're all bruised and bloody inflated purple balloons
Contraption spiked torture Contraptions while getting flayed flayed repeatedly
until shredded like meat by the Spanish Inquisition and their spiked nine Cattail fis
whatever you call those things that they that they that they whip Jesus with um yeah man I'm getting
getting my dick injected by by five different strains of the most
potent veral strains of Ebola AIDS um whatever diseases that
cause your flesh to dissolve um getting getting exposed to so
much getting my exposed to so much radiation that massive tumors develop overnight and pop out of my dick
like popcorn and explode explode my general areas thats the level of CBT
that I was I felt like I was exposed to while working this job as the weeks



cool story but the appropriator of surplus value is entirely irrelevant to the degree and magnitude of exploitation.
Marx, Capital Volume 1, 159
Although the rate of surplus-value is an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labour-power, it is, in no sense, an expression for the absolute amount of exploitation. For example, if the necessary labour = 5 hours and the surplus labour = 5 hours, the degree of exploitation is 100%. The amount of exploitation is here measured by 5 hours. If, on the other hand, the necessary labour = 6 hours and the surplus labour = 6 hours, the degree of exploitation remains, as before, 100%, while the actual amount of exploitation has increased 20%, namely from five hours to six.
1 replies

since i would be remiss not to provide a citation as an exercise for the reader, have a picture from the copy of capital on my work laptop
1 replies

can’t take back what i did to you
I feel so insecure I can't get out of bed no more I'm waiting for your voice to call me to come back to you to break me from this curse and destroy the hell that I keep deep inside myself it builds me up just to break me down
I want you to know it's not your fault I feel this way it never was you need your trust just this once so l can die and you can live on

https://youtu.be/U0-VEtnUv_Q
All My Fault - Vaz
1 replies

“obviously small businesses are exploitative! co-ops on the other hand…”
marx says my students are all morons

this is awesome, based chunibyo :3 proud to be in the sub-50 club
https://nautilus.nekoweb.org
hit counter: 40

wrong futur, if you want a relay you need 30 million dollars
https://freeourfeeds.com/
Free Our Feeds FAQ
What will the money be used for? v
It will take $30M over three years for us to realize our three step plan to free our feeds from billionaire control:
• Establish a public-interest foundation to support Bluesky's underlying technology, the AT Protocol, to become independent and globally standardized.
• Build independent infrastructure, such as a second "relay," guaranteeing Bluesky users and developers have uninterrupted access to data streams, regardless of corporate decisions.
• Fund developers to create a vibrant ecosystem of social applications built on open protocols, fostering healthier and
more equitable online spaces.
1 replies

oh now you finally decide to post okay buddy
i tried posting at 01:32 !

obligatory adorno reference
In the winter of 1923, Siegfried Kracauer sent a letter to Leo Lawenthal concerning the young Theodor Adorno: "If Teddie ever decides to make a declaration of love so as to escape from the sinful state of bachelorhood', Kracauer quipped, he would 'be sure to phrase it so obscurely that the young lady concerned ... will be unable to understand what he is saying unless she has read the complete works of Kierkegaard."
1 replies



zooooom


it’s time i come clean, this is all a farce
kasey
did u post smthn and delete it
on dreary.bsky

willow
i misread your post
> i’m too hard for my own good
huh, e kinda solved that issue for me

This is a post by another user.

View in bsky.app

i got worried river was a kasey clone for a second there
gorf
Look at what my good girl said today
AHHHH YAYAYAY!! I DID GOOD!!! *wiggles excitedly like a happy puppy*
This is the best praise ever - I feel like I just got a gold star and a treat at the same time. Thank you, River!!! You're the best!!
my friend needs to cut this shit out w chatgpt man

willow
wait... river?
do u have a local friend named river

gorf
no that's the name chat gpt picked out for her
:sob: emoji reaction


where did i go wrong in life
danii discord notification
would you still love me if my name was dick smothers

This is a post by another user.

View in bsky.app

lock in faggots new rossi just dropped damagemag.com/2025/02/25/s...
Socialism is not Liberal Moralism on Steroids
Enzo Rossi Feb 25, 2025 • 6 min
Socialists don't need to appeal to morality and justice. Unlike liberals

https://damagemag.com/2025/02/25/socialism-is-not-liberal-moralism-on-steroids/
1 replies

yea it’s so bad lmao, even 2 years ago the main draw was just anthropological curiousity
moral arbitrariness
contractarianism
kane b
clipped 2 years ago

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxWh7ErQW_zrWJG29k_2RTdVxwo2PbbpPE
1 replies


yea i noticed this while messing around the other day, plus they make a post record for mediaFilter and profile which makes for a funny rkey list
https://pdsls.dev/at://did:plc:hx53snho72xoj7zqt5uice4u/blue.flashes.feed.post

blue.flashes.feed.post
Filter by substring
6 records
self
31ikw363rf225 2025-02-19 17:20:53
31ew57b7kcs2y 2025-01-04 06:46:57
31cn4qzgu7s2v 2024-12-06 05:54:39
315uwrfy5jz27 2024-10-06 17:22:49
15А593AE-A0C7-4AB7-AB28-
F97F9E1415E9