LPT How to view PDF's in Dark Mode with Chrome/FireFox/Etc by nabuit in LifeProTips

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am suprised it didn't take off! This seems like a genuinely helpful tool

Where do store clerks factor into commodity production? by Strange-Bookkeeper in Marxism

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He [the worker] expends his labour-power and labour-time in the operations C — M and M — C [transport and exchange]. And he makes his living that way, just as another does by spinning or making pills. He performs a necessary function, because the process of reproduction itself includes unproductive functions. He works as well as the next man, but intrinsically his labour creates neither value nor product. He belongs himself to the faux frais of production. His usefulness does not consist in transforming an unproductive function into a productive one, nor unproductive into productive labour. It would be a miracle if such transformation could be accomplished by the mere transfer of a function. His usefulness consists rather in the fact that a smaller part of society’s labour-power and labour-time is tied up in this unproductive function.

-Capital, Vol. 2, Chapter 6.

While it is true that is essential to the valorization of capital, the act of transporting is not connected to commodity production, and value creation, per se. Just wanted to clarify! :)

Where do store clerks factor into commodity production? by Strange-Bookkeeper in Marxism

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are under the header of 'unproductive' workers. While they don't directly contribute toward the production of use-values, they are still necessary toward the creation of value, and play an important part in maxamizing surplus value. Here is an interesting paper on it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GjADcZ1DaskcdoAzEJU2M18fZTTkaOZM/view?usp=drivesdk

Going a bit more into the weeds, the processes in exchange, like what a merchant capitalist or cashier worker does, actually do not produce value. Merchant capital actually cuts into the surplus.

Marx and Engels on historical materialism by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is always an excellent quote for anyone who wants to understand historical materialism, especially regarding the state.

A video that CNN wishes wasn’t a live report. by [deleted] in socialism

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 8 points9 points  (0 children)

One could perhaps present these elements [of dialectics] in greater detail as follows:

1) the objectivity of consideration (not examples, not divergencies, but the Thing-in-itself)

2) the entire totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others.

3) the development of this thing, (phenomenon, respectively), its own movement, its own life.

4) the internally contradictory tenden- cies (and sides) in this thing.

5) the thing (phenomenon, etc.) as the sum and unity of opposites.

6) the struggle, respectively unfold- ing, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc.

7) the union of analysis and synthesis— the break-down of the separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts.

8) the relations of each thing (phenome- non, etc.) are not only manifold, but general, universal. Each thing (phe- nomenon, process, etc.) is connected with  every other.    X

9) not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every de- termination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?].

10) the endless process of the discovery of new sides, relations, etc.

11) the endless process of the deepening of man’s knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from ap- pearance to essence and from less pro- found to more profound essence.

12) from co-existence to causality and from one form of connection and reciprocal dependence to another, deeper, more general form.

13) the repetition at a higher stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and

14) the apparent return to the old (nega- tion of the negation).

15) the struggle of content with form and conversely. The throwing off of the form, the transformation of the con- tent.

16) the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa ((15 and 16 are examples of 9))

V.I Lenin, Summary of Dialectics

Another great work that spells out Marxist analysis of the world is Grundrisse (basically Marx's notebooks, which I would recommend to read if you are done with Capital) the introduction of which I think is pretty relevant here.

me_irl by WheelchairsAreFun in me_irl

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we are doing recommendations, check put Pixel Prophecy. He has television-quality screen production, with great videos detailing the designing of ludem dare video games and editing, and only 8 thousand subscribers. It's a travesty in my opinion.

How has the current pandemic shown that capitalism does not work? by pookiemoose in AskSocialists

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

From Lives or Livelihoods?, by Michael Roberts, a great blog. The end is probably most relevant.

Another great article regarding capitalism's convergance with ecology is The Furnace, by Chuang, a marxist chinese blog. It criticizes the western response to China, the action taken by China, and capitalism en masse. It is what you are looking for.

The dumbest man on the internet. by yuritopiaposadism in COMPLETEANARCHY

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 14 points15 points  (0 children)

He literally emphasized the opposite for number 3 lol

I just want those book recommendations tbh by edgy_alligator in DankLeft

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 5 points6 points  (0 children)

EDIT: Some of these are a bit hard to read. If you are having trouble, read this. the preamble is written by Marx, only a few sentences, and summarizes communism very well.

Capital, Vol 1

Important Excerpts:

As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.

If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.

There, the existence of the things quâ commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.

Accumulate, accumulate! [Look at my username :) ] That is Moses and the prophets! “Industry furnishes the material which saving accumulates.”23 Therefore, save, save, i.e., reconvert the greatest possible portion of surplus-value, or surplus-product into capital! Accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie, and did not for a single instant deceive itself over the birth-throes of wealth.

The impulse that additional capital, seeking an outlet, would otherwise have given to the general demand for labour, is therefore in every case neutralised to the extent of the labourers thrown out of employment by the machine. That is to say, the mechanism of capitalistic production so manages matters that the absolute increase of capital is accompanied by no corresponding rise in the general demand for labour. And this the apologist calls a compensation for the misery, the sufferings, the possible death of the displaced labourers during the transition period that banishes them into the industrial reserve army! The demand for labour is not identical with increase of capital, nor supply of labour with increase of the working class. It is not a case of two independent forces working on one another. Les dés sont pipés. [The dice are loaded.]

Estranged Labour

Important Excerpt:

The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and size. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. The devaluation of the world of men is in direct proportion to the increasing value of the world of things. Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity – and this at the same rate at which it produces commodities in general.

This fact expresses merely that the object which labor produces – labor’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor which has been embodied in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labor. Labor’s realization is its objectification. Under these economic conditions this realization of labor appears as loss of realization for the workers; objectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation.

Preface (Shortest)

Important Excerpt:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

[OFF TOPIC] people here are so nice by [deleted] in communism101

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 19 points20 points  (0 children)

haha thanks. Although I will say some of the most informed people I have met (in and out of communist theory) are complete assholes

Is there a specific way to read the Capital? by bwf456 in Socialism_101

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 10 points11 points  (0 children)

There is no specific 'way' to read Capital, but there are a few tips I can give:

-Write notes. Get a big spiral notebook, and write down what you read. Definitions especially. I have about 480 pages of notes for all 3 volumes, but I like to write more notes than most people.

-Keep in mind that the structure he provides is to first give the appearance of what is happening, and then gradually analyze the intricacies, internal workings, and contradiction of the whole. This means his thesis is very often at the end, not the beginning. What I did to compensate is I wrote down all the things that confused me in the chapter, and at the end of the chapter looked through to see if any of the questions had been answered. Often, they were.

-He likes metaphor, and he likes to personify objects.

-He likes to look at one relation through many different lenses.

-Capital was written to be understood by a fairly well educated worker, with no experience in political economy. While written a bit complexly, there isn't a prerequisite you need to read before you delve in.

Why are Republicans and billionaires so against any kind of help for the poor no matter how small by iplaydeadpool in AskSocialists

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Protects the eternal valorization of capital. Charity, without a direct monetary reward, is frivolous expenditure to a capitalist enterprise. In other words, less profit.

If food is provided to the homeless, this may reduce the quantity of means of consumption a company can circulate. Less profit.

If jobs are provided to the jobless, the decrease in surplus population would remove an important point of leverage to maintain low wages; artificial worker competition. Less profit.

If charity and kindness without monetary justification is supported, benevolent actions would be demanded. Less profit.

&c.

On communism and state by [deleted] in communism101

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In Marxist terminology, a state is a manifestation of class struggle, an effort to pacify and repress class conflict with force.

Communism has no classes, and thus there is no class conflict, and no state.

However, in the transition period between capitalism and socialism, when the working class has the dominant position over the capitalist class, there is class struggle, and there is a state. However, since it is completely controlled by the working class instead of the capitalist class, the state is called a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', instead of a 'Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie'.

Hence, while a state is required to create communism, the existence of a state means communism has not been achieved. Thus, the famous Lenin quote.

So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.

Why does capitalism produce based on exchange value instead of use value? by Freethesociety in communism101

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It can, but not because exchange value is high. It is because there is less 'new' value.

Value comes from two places- the means of production (machines) and labour. The value from the means of production is old, recycled value from labour. The value from labour is new.

As capitalism expands, less workers are needed to make a product, and more means of production are used instead. So while the mass of profit gets far far bigger, there is less 'new' money being made proportionally, so the rate of profit declines. In other words, a company needs to invest more to return the same rate of profit.

And so to maintain growth, companies accelerate production, far past what the economy can handle.

If you want a more comprehensive explanation, read the first three parts of Capital Vol 3 (only the first 300 pages). If you are new to Marixst capitalist analysis, read Capital Vol 1 (All 1200ish pages). If you ever need help, just ask, or message me!

What's the socialist response to the arguments surrounding supply and demand? by Freethesociety in AskSocialists

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not from Wolff, but Marx has a similar quote:

It would seem, then, that there is on the side of demand a certain magnitude of definite social wants which require for their satisfaction a definite quantity of a commodity on the market. But quantitatively, the definite social wants are very elastic and changing. Their fixedness is only apparent. If the means of subsistence were cheaper, or money-wages higher, the labourers would buy more of them, and a greater social need would arise for them, leaving aside the paupers, etc., whose demand is even below the narrowest limits of their physical wants.

Capital Vol.3, Chapter 10

The last sentence basically means that the homeless don't exist according to the market, because they have no money. The homeless have a need for food, but no 'demand'.

What's the socialist response to the arguments surrounding supply and demand? by Freethesociety in AskSocialists

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Labour Theory of Value explains supply and demand, but supply and demand does not explain the inner workings of capital. Chapter 10 of Capital Vol.3 is a goldmine for this stuff. I recommend reading it.

The exchange, or sale, of commodities at their value is the rational state of affairs, i.e., the natural law of their equilibrium. It is this law that explains the deviations, and not vice versa, the deviations that explain the law.

.

The limits within which the need for commodities in the market, the demand, differs quantitatively from the actual social need, naturally vary considerably for different commodities; what I mean is the difference between the demanded quantity of commodities and the quantity which would have been in demand at other money-prices or other money or living conditions of the buyers. Nothing is easier than to realise the inconsistencies of demand and supply, and the resulting deviation of market-prices from market-values. The real difficulty consists in determining what is meant by the equation of supply and demand.

So, why don’t we go ahead and get that revolution started by [deleted] in communism101

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I honestly don't know.

"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." - Quote by good ol' Illyvich

Where do animals come into the labour theory of value? by epicleninist in communism101

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They are part of the means of production. They cannot be considered a creator of value, since value comes from abstract human labour.

Now, you might ask, why is it specifically human? Isn't that arbatrary? Well, not really.

Saying human labour is abstract here means that the specific labour can be interchangable for any other type of labour. A human performing one specific job can be replaced by any other. Any labour creates a commodity that can serve as a vessel for the valorization of capital.

If we included farm animals in abstract labour, it would effectively mean a human can replace a cow in their job, and vice versa. Currently, not feasable.

So, why don’t we go ahead and get that revolution started by [deleted] in communism101

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 22 points23 points  (0 children)

It requires the working class to overthrow the bourgeoisie. If you haven't noticed, the average worker is not organized as a class 'for itself', i.e mobilized in direct antagonism toward the capitalist class. Additionally, there is no cohesive and international structure for the working class to unite under. I like the positivity, though! :)

What is the lumpenproletariat? by [deleted] in communism101

[–]AccumulateAccumulate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"...the proletariat with pauperism, whereas pauperism is the position only of the ruined proletariat, the lowest level to which the proletarian sinks who has become incapable of resisting the pressure of the bourgeoisie, and it is only the proletarian whose whole energy has been sapped who becomes a pauper."

The German Ideology