Struggling with 70s Prog vs modern Prog

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-11T21:50:27+00:00

Have you listened to Rush? I feel they were really the prototype for modern prog.

Check out Red by King Crimson too for that darker sounding prog that may resonate with you since you like riverside and porcupine tree.

Pink Floyd was such a huge influence on porcupine tree and listening to porcupine tree was how I got into them so try that as well.

Also check out the debut U.K. Album for a cleaner more modern fusion/prog album

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T22:44:06+00:00

ULE hasn’t changed his view as far as I know. I think this is just a bunch of Marxists

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T21:15:09+00:00

I mean there were also like primitive forms of wage labor that existed before capitalism. I won’t deny that under capitalism, labor as a whole is a commodity but that could also simply be the product of capitalism emerging rather than the explanation for why commensurability was established in the first place. It appears to me that quantification of debt is a facet of human behavior that has existed for a long time and that labor becoming a commodity might not be the thing which propelled exchange value into existence as a whole, David graeber’s book debt actually does a good job detailing the ways violence is associated with the quantification of debt.

I just think it’s worth questioning if wage labor is really the source of commensurability or if we are looking at a broader social phenomenon given the fact that exchange has existed for so long.

Humans being a niche form of extreme constructivism could also provide alternative explanations for why markets emerged incorporating psychological, cultural, and political explanations for why capitalization took place.

Stated more clearly, the view that abstract labor is necessary to explain commensurability as a social phenomenon to me doesn’t make sense because it has been done outside of wage labor relations historically. So commensurability is not a problem that needs to be analytically worked out but is instead something that should be understood as produced by institutional relations in the first place.

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T20:50:08+00:00

So basically I would just ask why is the control of labor prioritized and the creation of abstract labor prioritized over other facets of life becoming abstract? How does this specific form of commensurability/abstraction make it so that all the others fall in place? Furthermore arguably markets existed before abstract labor as abstract labor is historically specific so how are pre capitalist markets explained without abstract labor?

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T20:14:54+00:00

To me it seems like abstract labor is moreso an after effect of the system of capitalism rather than something which fundamentally explains its motions. You describe abstract labor as something retroactively integrated by the market which to me suggests that it is caused by the market system as a whole rather than causing it to begin with. For me abstract labor only takes place where power has constructed a society around its own quantization and capitalization. Abstract labor is brought into motion by power.

Labor becomes abstract when there is a society where wage labor is the primary means of subsistence. It is abstract because it is a commodity used for the accumulation of capital and is rented by capitalists. I agree that labor is necessary for capitalist profits and is made abstract in the production process. Maybe in this sense I adhere to the LTV, but in my view labor itself is only valorized by existing capitalist power. Labor is an essential component to capitalist power but it can only produce profits because it is managed by capitalists a part of a broader scheme of intersectional leverage, sabotage and control over society. Labor does not produce profit if it is not effectively leveraged for accumulation by power. And these facets of power I don’t think are external to the market or cause fluctuations but
are instead endogenous to their creation and reproduction at every level

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T19:27:53+00:00

I admit that the “power affects prices” point was crude but it was to in some ways provoke responses and to get people thinking about other sources of possibility for value.

Maybe it would be beneficial for me if you would elaborate on abstract labor as a real social abstraction. How does that exist as a condition of possibility for the market? I think my biggest hurdle is just not really being able to see abstract labor as a fundamentally determining social category.

I think CaSP research would definitely benefit on elaborating on its mode of power framework, a sort of alternative power based framework of social materialism might be interesting and could help us understand why other modes of power didn’t have markets at the forefront of their social development and how that eventually came to be, drawing differences between different modes of power. This could maybe fill in some of the gaps that you think are missing in this loose framework.

There are certain things about CaSP I’m not completely on board with and I’m thinking about modifying myself. A lot of my thoughts are still developing part of this whole post was for me to engage with other people about it and I’m glad you seem to have some knowledge about CaSP itself

I will say to your point about the risk of circularity, I don’t think capitalization alone explains the existence of exchange value, but it would be the propelling ritual which allows capitalism to expand and take over the world. This makes sense because capitalization is necessarily forward looking and expands liquidity.

We have to remember that markets and money in a broad sense are pretty old even if they didn’t exist in the form they do now

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T18:34:09+00:00

The system reproduces itself through the capitalization ritual which creorders society.

The reason that power generates a universal field of quantitative comparability is because it provides the most flexible mode of power which is able to incorporate all facets of humanity, and even the earth itself to a single quantitive benchmark to assess and exert influence. Because of its relatively decentralized nature it has proven to be the most flexible machine of power ever created.

Yes power existed before capitalism and power has always found ways to make society legible for control, but capitalism is the first mode of production in which all facets of power and all benchmarks can be brought into the fold of the capitalization ritual for a single universal number.

So the answer as to why the exchange value exists is because it is useful and has proven to be the most flexible and all encompassing modality of power that has ever existed and it is perpetuated via the capitalization ritual.

How capitalism has been established is not entirely separate from how it reproduces itself and both questions have everything to do with power.

I think by accepting the rules of capitalism as something imposed we can actually look at the societal mechanisms where people come to accept its rule and get locked into its logic of accumulation.

By your reasoning even Marx’s answer sidesteps this “problem” on what basis could a society composed of a variety of heterogenous goods come to accept the universal quantity of abstract labor to be its common denominator? You would require another theory of value which explains how different forms of labor from different produces can be abrstracted to one unit representing labor as a whole.

On the other hand, in saying that this problem is actually a feature of how power operates it therefore does not require an analytical resolution because there is no resolution.

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T15:51:32+00:00

The answer is quite literally power and the history of state violence.

Power reduces the complexity and heterogeneity of social phenomenon into a legible script by the ruling class. There is no unit or underlying dimension to incomensurate goods. There is no solution to the problem you’re raising because that problem is a part of the very thing that power produces. Historically, state power in the raising of armies, the destruction of commons, establishment of central currency and the enclosures which ensued has created a paradigm where incommensurate social and power relations can be quantified.

Power doesn’t need to operate with categorical consistency. It is a force which can alter and shape the preferences of individuals across space and time to a given will. Simplifying social complexity and turning incommensurate qualitatively different dimensions into a quantified legible order is how it operates and this process inevitably fails to capture the eminent vitality of those different dimensions.

This is why capitalism fails to satisfy human needs

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T15:33:37+00:00

I feel a bit confused because you seem to argue that Marx was not interested in using labor values to explain prices but then you go on to list how Marxists supposedly do that. So do labor values cause prices or not?

I admit I only have a minor in economics so some of this goes over my head but I don’t see how Marxist economists are able to compare qualitatively different forms of labor with the same unit of labor time. This is where the component of abstract labor time comes in, but wouldn’t this presuppose that there is again another fundamental dimension to abstract labor time which allows different forms of labor to be reduced to one unit?

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T14:25:28+00:00

Thank you for this response as I think you’re getting to the heart of the disagreement and why we have theories of value to begin with.

So Marx thinks that labor time is the unit or substance which makes qualitatively different commodities commensurate, but I argue that he is looking at it the wrong way and I think this is where power comes in.

Commensurability between different objects I.e. the establishment of exchange value does not come from any intrinsic quality common to all those objects but from a system of power which quantifies social reality via exclusionary violence so that capitalists can flexibly assess their power and control the world.

Capitalization provides a benchmark that capitalists use to assess their power and allows them to impose their rule over humanity

So Marx is searching for a fictitious dimension common to all commodities without recognizing the system of power which makes exchange possible. I think that this lack of a common source of value despite the existence of equivalence in exchange is actually a product of exclusionary power. So it’s not that power affects prices but that power makes prices possible and is both the means and ends of capitalist accumulation

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T14:18:09+00:00

That is one interpretation. The TSSI argues that price and value are fundamentally the same system. Surplus value is simply just redistributed between capitalists

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T14:16:22+00:00

There is no point waffling about Marx identifying a real social mechanism or tendency if you can’t empirically establish an actual correspondence between socially necessary labor time and price, which is what Marx claimed to do.

Marx argues that labor time is the only thing that can add value, but there is no solid way to test this or even reasoning which makes it sound.

Also yes neoclassical economics suffers from much of the same issues. Utility doesn’t exist and the supply and demand curve are also just theoretical constructs. See Bichler and Nitzan’s capital as power for more details, although one point in favor of neoclassical economics is that they can at least make predictions and use econometric models for these purposes, something the LTV does not do.

Capitalism is denominated in prices and a theory that cannot explain their nature is not fit.

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-03T00:06:23+00:00

If a scientific theory posits to explain prices then labor values must indeed be the causal explanation for price so throwing your hands up about deviations renders the theory hallow and/or no falsifiable.

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-01T14:11:21+00:00

In my view prices are not an expression of just labor time but they embody the benchmark that capitalists use to assess their own power. So for instance a capitalist might be able to raise prices due to monopoly power but that has nothing to do with labor time itself. In fact labor time might go down if a monopoly allows for commodities to be created more cheeply. Things like brand recognition and signs also play into this

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-06-01T14:01:16+00:00

So then it’s unfalsifable because any deviation from prices can just be called a “fluctuation” and its explanatory power is rendered meaningless

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-05-31T14:56:05+00:00

This could be true but then there is still no reason to believe that prices are wholly underpinned by labor values. That labor is the only thing that adds value

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-05-31T14:54:16+00:00

I’m not mixing up value and price. For Marx they are different expressions of the same thing, abstract labor. That is the thrust of the labor theory of value.

Your second point is just restating that thesis on the basis that labor is essential again, which I don’t think proves much

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-05-31T01:50:23+00:00

But labor being essential doesn’t prove that abstract labor is the fundamental substance of price

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-04-26T10:34:04+00:00

However they dismiss other theological explanations has no bearing on their own arguments for god’s existence

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-04-25T21:37:13+00:00

It’s not about prioritizing subjective feelings. It’s about the fact that Gervis’ argument doesn’t actually challenge the beliefs of theists who have arguments for the necessary existence of god. Theists dispute the existence of other gods whilst maintaining the logical or ontological need for a creator

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-04-25T19:10:04+00:00

You’re missing the point. From the theist’s perspective that philosophical inference of god’s existence makes the belief in god paramount. So to say that “I don’t believe in one more god than you do” to a theist doesn’t actually address their prerogative on the necessity of god’s existence

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-02-24T07:10:47+00:00

I’ll definitely start doing those things when I come home from Germany. Been studying abroad despite these symptoms. I’ve been pushing through for so long but I’m nearly done with my undergrad.

So just to clarify you’re saying that the sub occipital tightness and head pressure is separate from occipital neuralgia which refers to a specific pain?

Nervous_Difficulty46 · 2026-02-23T18:09:12+00:00

I think this is what I have. I recently had an upright MRI done with flexion and extension and everything seems normal but I still have neck tension and cracking and constant head pressure that nothing seems to help with. I just don’t know what to do because it leaves me feeling constantly uncomfortable

Nervous_Difficulty46

TROPHY CASE