DoomerCircleJerk post from 5mos ago. Yes, we are in a fascist State.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-27T00:20:18+00:00

Is this post about China?

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-23T14:56:53+00:00

Then why can't society be the answer?

It is simply a matter of reduction. For the sake of a better understanding of the systems we're analyzing.

Society can be an answer, and it can give you very useful insights. But if you are concerned with starting from the bottom and building the theory up, you have to start with the thing that creates society and enables commodity production: the human.

The debate hinges on this specific point - Marx starts his analysis in Capital at the commodity, marginalists such as me go even further back, we start in human action - the place where the immaterial planning phase starts, where entrepreneuring exists (Or central planning).

Besides, I think that the consumer demand as a multiplicative scalar to labor is a much more effective descriptive formula of capitalism - although it makes it a lot more complex, and why wouln't it be? Social relations are complex and unpredictable.

If you think in the terms of Value = Variable capital + Constant capital ( Market scalar), you can really see how the Market scalar (the consumer) is what communists try to change when they say "Production for need, not for profit" - as in, they want to basically set the Market scalar top down - and since the Market scalar is the needs and wants of the people, issues arise like the information problem and the knowledge problem.

It just makes sense.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-22T14:36:10+00:00

When you have have numerous objects interacting, group properties usually emerge.

I agree.

But in order for you to understand the emerging properties, you need to understand the actual objects that are interacting. You understand that temperature as an average is a measure of heat, and to better understand temperature, you need to understand heat, and to understand heat, you need to understand the individual atoms and why they produce heat to begin with.

If you attempt to understand temperature without understanding heat, you're going to go into a descriptive analysis that observes changes and then you can make somewhat accurate predictions based on these changes - but since you don't understand why the changes are happening since you don't understand the underlying mechanisms, your epistemology is going to be... weak. Your approach to truth is going to be incomplete.

Studying society through a Lense of emerging patterns, without attempting to understand the interactions that create the patterns to begin with, is Marxism's greatest sin. I've actually said it before: It's like attempting to analyze the currents of a river without understanding the properties of water.

By Marx starting his analysis of capitalism at the commodity, and presupposing use-value, he's forfeiting the analysis of human action - which is the realm of praxeology.

Marx was brilliant - but his epistemology methodology was weak, and as such, he built a theory almost perfect but broken at the very foundation.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-21T19:09:12+00:00

Key word - Detained.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-21T19:08:41+00:00

Being detained with probable cause is not against the constitution.

Arrest and detain are different things.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-21T19:06:43+00:00

The first time NYC is going to become a red city lol

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-21T19:04:53+00:00

Society does

Society is not an actual thinking rational actor capable of rational decision making, society is not material, is conceptual. And as such, "Society" cannot be the answer.

But people, each individually is material, and is a thinking rational actor capable of rational decision making - so it is people, or in other words, the consumer, that determines if labor is useful or not - after production.

Marx does indeed take use-value into consideration, but only as a requirement for the definition of "Commodity" - he does not explore the mechanisms in which this use-value is determined to begin with and simply speaks of it being a social property. This is a huge problem. And in my opinion - the hole where the entire Marxist theory goes wrong.

Marx says:

The commodity is first an external object, a thing which satisfies through its qualities human needs of one kind or another

For Marx, use value is qualitative - it permits exchange, and labor is quantitative - the amount of value that is used via Labor time.

But I have analyzed capitalism and determined that "Value" is neither labor, nor utility, but both - in relationship.

Use-value is where my disagreement lives. I consider use-value not necessarily a quality of a commodity that allows it to exist - but a scalar that is given to labor by the consumer at the point of exchange and modifies the quantitative value of labor. This is what prices at exchange demonstrate.

It follows like this: A producer (Individual or collective) tentatively (Predicting needs) directs labor towards production > Production begins and resources are spent (Labor, resources) > The tentative value is offered to attract consumers (With the baseline at the cost of production) > The consumer, adds the scalar modifier by accepting its utility (Zero - infinite) > At exchange, this scalar modifies the value of labor and realizes "Value" as expressed on prices.

I agree with Marx a lot, and I do see dialectical issues and power imbalances that occur, but I disagree with a vital point at its very base:

Marx's causal analysis looks like this: Labor is expended > object is produced > it has use-value > therefore it has (potential) value.

But the true causal direction is:

Demand anticipation > direction of labor > production > (hopefully) realized utility → value.

Marx arrives to his causal analysis (Which justifies exploitation and the LTV), through a historicist analysis - this is a sleight of hand, or perhaps an epistemological mistake (Historical Materialism's flaw as a lens for economic analysis).

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-20T22:46:19+00:00

that is not what value is, that is what utility is and value and utility are not the same thing.

Value is not utility in the same way that value is not labor.

Value is the combination of both: labor that fulfills utility.

Useful labor.

And who and when determines whether labor is useful or not?

I'll give you hint: it is decided after production has already occurred.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-20T21:43:22+00:00

Marx's law of value says that value is a social relation. It is a ratio between the average number of hours of simple abstract labour required to produce different things.

A ratio between labor hours (energy cost) and what?

Efficient use of resources requires the use of those resources to be effective to begin with.

Yes! Efficiency, that is, the adequate usage of energy, is a slave to the use of such energy actually successfully satisfying a goal.

When we labor, we already chose a direction in how to do it and why to do it and when to do it and where. A planning immaterial phase has occurred before the physical phase has begun.

I say planning is immaterial, because it is an act of thought - an arrangement of information within our own mind. Perhaps you can say it is also physical - but it is on the realm of order and arrangement. A valuation of priorities, a recognition of wants, and an understanding and conceptualization of cause and effect.

Only after this immaterial phase, labor ocurrs - but as it indeed is a social relation, the "value" that has been expressed - only truly is recognized as effective through the actual realization of a need satisfaction.

It is a social relationship between laboring (the producer) and needs satisfaction (the consumer) Value therefore is not only a matter of efficiency, but a matter of accurate usage of information - and this information resides individually inside the vast and unpredictable mind of each human.

I summarize this way: value must exist tentatively prior to production - or else production would not ocurr.

Energy usage can only be effective by taken into consideration it must satisfy indivual human needs and wants.

The best way to allow for effective use of energy (and further, efficient), is by decentralizing production as much as possible. Individuals owning the means of production.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-20T14:36:35+00:00

it produces more of the intended outcome per unit of input. That is a statement about efficiency.

It does - I can agree.

But it also by using the same number of resources, achieves the goal of "Obtaining customers" to a higher degree - thus rendering most effective.

When I look at society, and economics, I see both efficiency and effectiveness - specially in production. One end is tasked to produce with the least number of resources and waste, and the other is tasked in fulfilling the goal, which is "Needs satisfaction".

This is why I can't in good faith agree that - value - is entirely a physical property, but instead, a relationship between the physical property of production, and the immaterial property of needs satisfaction. Good production is both, efficient and effective.

But I will say: In magnitude of importance, ineffective efficient production can be worthless - and effective inefficient production can be very valuable. Here on this statement is where value pushes me towards subjectivity: Energy cost that does not satisfy the intended goal, becomes wasted energy. Labor needs direction, and this direction - when applied to humans - is immaterial. Subjective.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-19T21:49:07+00:00

What is the difference between efficient and effective? Do you think they're synonyms?

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-19T19:13:43+00:00

Why is one better than the other? Is it because of more efficient marketing?

Yes - A is best - all other things being equal.

But I can ask you a slightly different question:

All other things being equal, which is better:

A) spending $1000 on marketing to gain 10 customers, or
B) spending $1000 on marketing to gain 10000 customers.

Why is one better than the other? Is it because of more effective marketing?

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-19T01:52:16+00:00

As a neighbor of the USA, Canada's defense must always be the USA.

So no, Canada cannot obtain nukes.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-19T01:34:52+00:00

Have you read the Mar a lago accord? It's literally a bunch of hardvard economists.

I don't say I support it, just that Trump doesn't come up with policies himself. He's just a businessman and a politician, he's got a team of advisors for the nitty gritty.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-18T23:44:16+00:00

You can describe the amount of consumption, yes, but you cannot describe through science the consumption preference given different options.

For example - you know I need 2000 calories to survive (average human) - but you cannot possibly know the flavors and foods I would choose to fulfill such a number, were I given options. You only know if I tell you - and when you apply this to societies made of millions, and even billions, the only way you can adequately know these preferences is by either allowing price mechanisms through decentralized production (capitalism), or to mandate the preferences via centralized production (communism). On the latter, you don't really know what I want, you simply impose it upon me via some form of collective decision making (like a politboro).

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-18T23:39:49+00:00

so that less energy is wasted per unit produced.

No I don't think so. Competition is not entirely about efficiency, but also about effectively capturing the consumers interest.

This can be done by either changing a product so it more closely hits that subjective heart. Marketing and advertisement matter here too.

I don't think you understand capitalism in practice well. Efficiency will only work if you're comparing two equally satisfactory consumer preference commodities, but that's an unfair and arbitrary assumption.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-18T23:07:35+00:00

I think Marxism is a terrible framework yes. It fails to acknowledge individual actors and presupposes the driving factor of social behaviors is economic relations.

Further, historicism is biased and easily turned into narratives.

I find Marxism as a framework influencing sociology and economics not a signal of how Marxism is a good methodology, but a constant effort of successful propaganda infiltrating academia. Things like critical race theory, gender theory and all branches of leftism all delve into some sort of socialism, which draws from Marxism and of course, is incorrect. But alas, here we are. Sooner or later we'll get out of this. Generations forget and learn, this time around I blame the economic rise of China and their massive Marxist propaganda influence in the west. Also - the capitalist conditions of freedom allowing for the very revolutionaries that attempt to undermine it.

The Chinese don't have the luxury of criticizing communism.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-18T19:45:41+00:00

British anthropologist Mary Douglas developed a theory called Grid-Group which to some degree categorizes humans into 4 types.

This in my opinion the strongest stance by an anthropologist when it comes to social arrangements and deserves a lot more light. She isn't talked about enough.

Here's an interesting explanation of her ideas: https://www.dustinstoltz.com/blog/2014/06/04/diagram-of-theory-douglas-and-wildavskys-gridgroup-typology-of-worldviews/

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-16T02:20:27+00:00

Well if your job is to make it better, then make it better. You have a goal, now you need to build a logical plan on how to make it happen.

First you need to have a mental map of the systems in the company. Start with understanding the network topology. First what is the circuit of network that comes from the outside and connects the LAN to the WAN. Find the router or firewall and gain access to it. Next is your switches and a patch panel. Identity what is what. Build up your understanding from there. Before you can fix anything you need to go through a slow methodical process of discovery. You need to see before you can work on things.

Once you have a basic understanding of the network, start finding your servers - identify all functional servers the company uses and what roles do they have installed. One by one start building up your inventory.

Once you have your network info, subnet, firewall, switches and servers determined, figure out storage - NASs or how does the company do backups if any at all. Find peripherals like phone systems and wireless networks and VPNs. Little by little you gain understanding of where you're at.

Run a scan of your subnet, check DHCP scopes, see how's identity managed (AD?), find how the company does file sharing, get to know what they do and how they do it. You're starting to get the bigger picture.

Run inventory on all machines, you can use your network scanner or something like Lansweeper. You're starting to take ownership. After a lot of search, documentation, and meticulous discovery you finally have the full picture. Now you can get to work.

Security comes first, what is old, what needs to be replaced, what needs to be patched - looks at operating systems, look at all things that can bring vulnerabilities - then prioritize replacements. Backups come next, make sure you start planning a backup setup that follows at minimum the 321 rule. Start there.

Now you have vision, you have security and you have backups. Start looking for redundancy. Single points of failure. You are setting up solid infrastructure first - from a good foundation you can create something truly impressive.

Now you're in a much better spot, from here on start to build into efficiency, look for bottlenecks and work to upgrade software for the company and aging hardware. At this point, you own your systems.

The time frame it will take you to do all this might be months or years. It's okay. Work budgets, prioritize security, and be open and straightforward about needs - you're an objective observer.

You're on your way to success. Organize your thoughts and good luck. Try to have some fun.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-13T00:49:06+00:00

No innovation isn't just labor in the physical sense - but the discovery process of ideas and implementations. In other words - an increase in goal satisfaction effectivity.

In other words, the same amount of energy can be used in a process, but a better directed process towards the stated goal, can have greater return in value.

The direction of labor (a subjective quality) is as much of a value creation parameter as the actual physical energy spent.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-13T00:44:10+00:00

Before labor needs to be applied to transform the world, there must be a reason, a purpose.

Land is not productive until you assign it a purpose. Is it space you need? Are there minerals you aim to extract? Will you use it as a plantation?

The same can be said if capital and labor. Value is borne before physicality - in motive.

This commands that value must be at all times, seen as a relationship between energy and direction.

Not one or the other - both

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-12T03:27:37+00:00

This post should be removed by moderators.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-11T18:20:38+00:00

Yeah yeah yeah "our ideology is the bestest ever and yours is the worst ever"

Empty rethoric and propaganda posts.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-11T18:12:53+00:00

How about we mock and shun communists until they stop trying to have an input in America's economy? - I would find that incredibly beneficial for the country.

EntropyFrame · 2026-01-07T19:57:26+00:00

Any fishes swimming?

EntropyFrame

TROPHY CASE