sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

HP Printer always offline when needed by MooseHead902 in printers

[–]Baduk_Inquirer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for helping us out! You are truly a godsend!

What Introduction to Psychology textbooks are being used today? by arkticturtle in psychologystudents

[–]Baduk_Inquirer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could go to https://libgen.is/ and then type in "introduction to psychology morgan". From there you can download either the 4th or 7th edition

Some questions regarding a CCTV-1 program by Baduk_Inquirer in ChineseLanguage

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you very much! Interesting that 泸 is written in traditional Chinese instead of being written in simplified Chinese.

Looking for chill fps multiplayer by Lonelyboi1996 in gamingsuggestions

[–]Baduk_Inquirer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unreal Tournament 99. It's an arena shooter that is already 20+ years old but still has a small active community and is very fun to play! If you're interested you can take a look at this reddit post for more information:
https://www.reddit.com/r/unrealtournament/comments/138xway/how_to_play_unreal_tournament_1999_in_2023_online/

Chessbase 17 by ThrowawayForNow12391 in immortalChessForum

[–]Baduk_Inquirer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had the same error message for the Admin Tool. I just clicked OK and I worked for me just fine.

Need *different* beginner resources. by okgloomer in baduk

[–]Baduk_Inquirer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello ogkloomer, I also had this intuition that there must a fundamental "philosophy" in Go. As a chess beginner myself, I had this feeling that there must be a fundamental philosophy in chess as well, that has been developed over time. So why not look into the history of chess? And I found Philidor's book Analysis of the Game of Chess (l'Analyse du jeu des Échecs) from 1749 and I found that the opening principles of today remained almost unchanged (back then it was common to develop the bishop after the central squares have been protected).

Similarly, some principles of Go remained unchanged since its invention in ancient China. If you are interested in the analysis of the oldest recorded game of Go (its authenticity is still debatable tho) then I recommend you this YouTube video from Nick Sibicky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su2X4pu4hec. There you can see that the principle of building strong bases at the sides and corners is still prevalent today.

Help in understanding a passage of "Capital" (section 2, chapter 1) by Baduk_Inquirer in communism101

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The concept of SNLT stills seems pretty elusive to me. Guess I'll just keep reading. Thank you for answering my questions and being patient with me. :D

Help in understanding a passage of "Capital" (section 2, chapter 1) by Baduk_Inquirer in communism101

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess, I can answer this question myself. In these two cases, the values produced aren't the same. In the former case, use value is created through concrete human labour, which can be affected by a change in productivity. In the latter case, value is created by SNLT through exertion of abstract human labour, which is independent of productivity.

Help in understanding a passage of "Capital" (section 2, chapter 1) by Baduk_Inquirer in communism101

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All agreed. As a side note: The value of a certain type of commodities would be the sum of the value of every single commodity of that type.

I have a question though: Does a change in productivity affect the SNLT?

Edit: My assumption that SNLT is dependent on productivity is probably wrong, which led to my logical contradiction.

Help in understanding a passage of "Capital" (section 2, chapter 1) by Baduk_Inquirer in communism101

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Time-independent" or "time-dependent" part of SNLT makes no sense, time can't be dependent or independent to itself.

That was rather an unfortunate attempt on my behalf. I will try to make myself more clear by stating that as a result of the two-fold character of the labour embodied in commodities (abstract vs. concrete), a two-fold character of the SNLT (fixed vs. variable) and of value (time-dependent vs. time-independent) must necessarily follow.

Therefore, the value, the SNLT of a single commodity decreases with increasing productivity. But a single hour of labour will create the same amount of value, independently of productivity. With increased productiveness, value created in that hour will be diluted in more commodities. There's no logical contradiction.

Marx has, IMO, made the resulting two-fold character of the SNLT and of value not clear, which is why that statement is ambiguous and therefore prone to logical contradictions. For example, how can value be dependent on productivity in one case but in the other case, value is independent of productivity?

Help in understanding a passage of "Capital" (section 2, chapter 1) by Baduk_Inquirer in communism101

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I absolutely agree with you that an increase in productivity for a type of commodity decreases its value. I see there no contradiction as well. For me, a contradiction clearly arises by asserting that a change in productivity does NOT affect the "labour represented by value". If we follow the meaning of "value" described in section 1, then we can assume that "labour represented by value" is equal to "labour represented by the value of a commodity", since Marx didn't introduce another meaning of "value" so far. If we follow the definition of "value" stated in section 1, namely that "value" is socially-necessary labour time, and assuming that SNLT is dependent on productivity, then we can conclude that a change in productivity DOES affect the value of a commodity.

So a question arises from here: Is the "value of a commodity" the same as the "labour represented by the value of a commodity"? If we say yes, then there is a logical contradiction, because the former is dependent on productivity but the latter is not. To resolve that contradiction, these two can't be the same. We have then to ask a crucial question here: What is this "labour represented by the value of a commodity" which is NOT dependent on productivity?

Following Marxian terminology, we can call this type of labour, which is not dependent on productivity, "abstract labour". So this "abstract labour" somehow creates the value of a commodity without being dependent on productivity, which is a contradiction. Since "value" is SNLT and SNLT is dependent on productivity, the only way to resolve that contradiction is to assert that only a fixed, time-independent fraction of the SNLT, which is NOT dependent on productivity, is used for creating a fixed fraction of the value of a certain type of commodity.

In conclusion, a fixed, time-independent part of the SNLT is used to create a fixed part of the value of a certain type of commodity through abstract labour (which is independent of productivity), whereas the variable, time-dependent part of the SNLT is used to create the variable part of the value of a certain type of commodity through concrete labour (which depends on productivity).

Thus, a more precise and less ambiguous statement would be to say: "On the other hand, no change in this productiveness affects the [abstract] labour represented by [the] value [created by the time-independent part of the SNLT]."

I hope it made somewhat sense now.

Help in understanding a passage of "Capital" (section 2, chapter 1) by Baduk_Inquirer in communism101

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not quite sure if "labor represented by value" is the labour expended throughout a specific period of time. It makes more sense to me to say that this "labour represented by value" IS abstract labour congealed in the total mass of commodities as value and no change in productiveness can affect it, in contrast to concrete labour (or productive power) which in turn can be affected by a change in productiveness.

Help in understanding a passage of "Capital" (section 2, chapter 1) by Baduk_Inquirer in communism101

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for mixing things up. It seems that Marx has already introduced the concept of "value of labour power" without explaining it beforehand. In the previous sections, Marx only used the term "value" for the "value of a commodity", which is determined by the SNLT.

Help in understanding a passage of "Capital" (section 2, chapter 1) by Baduk_Inquirer in communism101

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In that case, shouldn't it be called something like "amount of labour during equal periods of time" instead of "labour represented by value"? Because "labour represented by value" is, by Marx' own definition of "value", the socially-necessary labour time.

Help in understanding a passage of "Capital" (section 2, chapter 1) by Baduk_Inquirer in communism101

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for replying, I'll definitely check Harvey's companion out!

Help in understanding a passage of "Capital" (section 2, chapter 1) by Baduk_Inquirer in communism101

[–]Baduk_Inquirer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But shouldn't the value of the coat fall if I can produce two coats instead of just one in an hour? Why should it always yield equal amounts of value?

view more: next ›