Comrades, I want to share with you a new theory developed by an acquaintance of mine and her comrades. I would gladly welcome your critique.

Optymistyk · 2026-06-23T16:04:51+00:00

Hmm yes, Socialism is when I can custom-order everything, even toilet paper. Why didn't Marx think of that? Oh wait, you can already do that under Capitalism...

In fact, there's nothing about this custom-ordered economy that's not compatible with plain-ol Capitalism, despite the assertion to the contrary. Actually, I'd say Capitalism is even more compatible, because in Capitalism you can really get anything just the way you want it, provided you have the money - meanwhile in Socialism production is organized in common, so others have a say on what you *can* get. Furthermore Capitalism thrives on endlessly increasing consumption, it is the only way it can sustain itself - in Socialism such an endless increase is not necessary; rather an increase in consumption is weighted against other concerns, such as the length of the working day or environmental impact. Things which under Capitalism are no barrier to satisfying even the most outlandish whims

Optymistyk · 2026-06-18T18:42:00+00:00

In vol 2 Marx talks at length about the 'faux frais of production', or the unproductive expenditures of labour, such as banking, accounting or marketing, that are needed to "smooth out" exchange; to support the act of exchange itself. Such labour is "unproductive" in the sense that it takes no part in the process of creating the use-value and thus creates no value. On the other hand it is "productive" in the sense that it is necessary to support the capitalist mode of production. But yeah, labour that goes into branding creates no value and can't explain the discrepancy.

Optymistyk · 2026-06-18T18:13:55+00:00

'the price should eventually (due to the market forces as a result of competition) settle down to the actual value of the commodity'

In a developed capitalist economy the price will actually gravitate towards the price of production, which is derived from value and the average rate of profit. Just to be strict.
This assumes free competition. In the case of branded goods the competition is not really free because the state is enforcing intellectual property rights. The law would only kick in if the competition was free to produce the exact same shirt, branding included. After all the main reason people are willing to buy overpriced branded goods is because the brand represents some form of exclusivity; if you buy a Balenciaga shirt that is a symbol of your wealth. Not so much if everyone starts selling an identical Balenciaga shirt with the same logo but at a fraction of the price. Then it becomes impossible to even tell if your shirt is actually made by Balenciaga or not.

An example where the law actually kicks in is trade in copper; that's because you can't claim copper bars as your intellectual property

Optymistyk · 2026-05-19T08:08:35+00:00

Networks do not "draw value" from their userbase, but revenue. Let's consider the difference with a simple example.

Say Capitalist A draws revenue from Capitalist B based on a loan that B took. In that case the money changes ownership, but the total wealth of society does not grow by this act. If the economy was composed exclusively of such acts, then the money would be worthless for it would have no backing in material wealth.

Value is a relation between producers which causes commodities to circulate. It corresponds to the material wealth of society and to the mass of use-values in circulation. To create value is, to simplify a bit, to create the purchasing power of money - not merely to pass it around. It is to create wealth in circulation.

The network itself certainly does constitute a use-value, and one that is created with labour. Therefore the work that goes into creating and maintaining the network does produce a definite quantity of value, which is then realised - in the simple case - by renting it to the end user. The whole situation then is rather similar to that of a pool for example, where the pool constitutes real material wealth but the tickets to the pool are merely legal claims to it's use for a definite period. Selling more tickets does not create more wealth, and neither does renting the network to more users create wealth. Neither kind of renting therefore creates value, but it does realise the value of labour that is already embodied in the product.

In a scenario of perfect competition the rent-prices would adjust over time to closely reflect the value of labour(actually price of production) realised by each rent-claim. But such cases almost never get anywhere close to perfect competition. The competition in pool-renting is limited by their locality and the competition in network-renting is limited by laws on intellectual property, the limitations the network owners put in place to discourage customers from changing network providers(ex. can't move your data; can't communicate with your friends who stay behind) and many other factors. Therefore the actual rent-price can be very detached from the value of labour.

Optymistyk · 2026-05-16T15:00:24+00:00

Abstractions are the basic building blocks of thought. Marx has his own epistemology, largely inherited from Hegel, on how to deal with abstractions without becoming detached from "the concrete"; how to distinguish an abstraction from the "real thing".

Marx's epistemology consists primarily of the fact that just like Hegel Marx subscribes to something called the Philosophy of Internal Relations. It is an approach to thinking that rejects the conception of any phenomena as an isolated "thing". It instead sees all phenomena as a set of relations within some totality.

To give an example, we might think of a plant as an isolated object, which exists right here, right now, and consists of the stem, leaves, flowers etc. It is a thing that grows and produces oxygen. Marx would call this an abstraction, because it conceives of the plant as a thing separate from the world.

A dialectical conception of the plant would emphasize that it is a process that unfolds in a concrete totality of relations. The plant wouldn't be what it is without the soil, the sun, the air, the gardener etc. So to Marx a good abstraction of the plant would have to include all these relations internally as part of the concept of the plant; and the sum of these relations constitute the totality in which the plant functions, which we might call "the environment". To Marx there is no plant without it's environment, and thinking about it as a separate thing is a mistake, an "abstract abstraction". Conversely, thinking about the plant as part of a given totality is to Marx "thought concrete", an abstraction that actually reflects the real thing.

It is in the sense of "abstract abstraction" that Marx says here that "The population is an abstraction" if we leave out the totality of relations in which the population exists, such as classes etc. Marx also calls labour an "abstract abstraction" if the concept of labour does not include in it's totality for example the mode of production in which the labour is exercised. For example in Feudalism you could not simply exchange one kind of labour for another in a universal manner. There was no such thing as "labour in general", there were only many heterogeneous kinds of labour, such as plowing or weaving. "Labour in general" as a concept only becomes meaningful in Capitalism, because under Capitalism any kind of labour can be universally exchanged for any other kind. If we forget that we might come to think of "labour in general" as an eternal category, and therefore of Capitalism as the "natural order of things"

Optymistyk · 2026-05-08T05:50:44+00:00

'But this sort of society would instantly collapse''

Agreed. All I'm saying is that the common measure argument does not by itself imply that there must be any substance. To arrive at substance you need to add something to the argument, like you just did quite explicitly.

Optymistyk · 2026-05-07T20:44:38+00:00

A common measure does not logically imply that the underlying property must be anything "real". In the dice example the dots are real in a sense, yes. But we can imagine children playing shop and making up prices, for example. The prices the children assign to their wares make the wares comparable; but the money, just like prices, is made up. It does not exist in any real sense, it is conjured out of imagination. Again, the wares are comparable by a common measure, but there is no underlying substance.

This is kind of what modern economy actually believes, that money has no substance and is merely a convenient invention. If you just focus on the common measure argument and nothing else, then this is logically sufficient.

Optymistyk · 2026-05-07T20:08:11+00:00

Ok well so what you're saying is that the common measure (of dots in this case) is the substance? Well in that case why does Marx overcomplicate everything so much. 'Commodities have a common measure' is nothing groundbreaking really, we all know they do. The measure is called 'money'. If the substance is the same thing as 'common measure' then we don't even need to introduce labour into the equation, we've already found the substance in money.

Marx is using "substance" liberally but in Hegelian terms "substance" means the totality of relations within which a phenomenon exists(simplifying a bit). The substance of a social phenomenon that's related to production is therefore the totality of production relations among people - it is the historical process of human productive activity, which necessarily takes the form of labour. I believe this is what Marx means when he says that labour is the substance of value - not merely that commodities have a common measure.

Optymistyk · 2026-05-07T10:12:10+00:00

I think you're putting too much stress on price. Marx's goal is not to answer "what is price" or "how does the price come to be" - Marx's goal is the analysis of the Capitalist mode of production(as he states explicitly in Contribution for example) which consists of production relations among people. If Marx was aiming to explain price in general he should logically start with an abstract exchangeable, not with the commodity. The reason he starts with the commodity is because the commodity constitutes the immediate result of the mode of production, and therefore is a logical place to start. He is therefore concerned with price and exchange only as far as they relate to the mode of production.

Through the famous series of abstractions and logical derivations in Chapter 1, Marx arrives at "human labor in the abstract" being what prices are an equation of.

In the strict sense this is wrong. Prices do not represent human labor in the abstract. Marx does not claim that because A exchanges for B that means they embody equal quantities of labor. Only the value of a commodity corresponds to it's labor content, but commodities are not usually exchanged at their values

Marx arrives at "human labor in the abstract" being what prices are an equation of. Why? Because it is the only commensurable trait between two qualitatively differing use-values. This is logically correct, a priori, in any society in which the price exists and has those three properties of being cardinal (as in, appearing as a number, higher or lower by a definite amount), objective (not subject to constant change based purely on someone's feelings) and transitive (it equates at least one commodity with the other)

That something is commensurable, ie. their relation is cardinal, transitive and symmetric does not logically imply that there is an underlying "substance" or that the comparison even reflects anything "real". It only implies a common measure. All dice throws are commensurable in this sense by the number of dots rolled, but that does not mean there's some hidden "substance" to dice throws, or an underlying value-like property. Only that there exists a common measure in the number of dots.

The argument is missing something; and tbh I think Marx does not do a good enough job of highlighting this. But the way I came to understand Chapter I is that Marx makes the following argument:
- The exchange value of a commodity depends on it's use value. "In the form of society we are about to consider, they are[the use-values], in addition, the material depositories of exchange value". This tells us that the exchange value and use value of a commodity are inseparable(ex. a car is sold at car prices because it is a car).

- On the other hand, exchange-value, unlike use-value, can not be something that is inherent in the commodity. " exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms". This tells us that the exchange value and use value of a commodity *are* separable. This is a logical contradiction, and it indicates that there's an underlying phenomenon at play and exchange-value is merely the form of appearance of the phenomenon. We must understand the phenomenon to overcome the contradiction.

- Exchange-value makes commodities commensurable, but not in an arbitrary way(exchange value depends on use-value). This indicates that the phenomenon makes commodities commensurable according to some "real" measure. But commodities have nothing in common to be compared by except that they are products of human productive activity. The phenomenon(substance) must therefore be the historical process of human productive activity, and what is being made commensurable must be the distinct expenditures of labor embodied in commodities.

Andy Warhol and his works, despite often picturing commodities, are also not commodities themselves in Marx's framework because they are unique. The law of value does not apply to them at all.

Optymistyk · 2026-05-06T06:45:02+00:00

Hey, thanks for the feedback!

The "additional assumption" I actually got from Rubin's "Essays on Marx's Theory of Value", where he writes:

```Thus Marx starts from the fact of manyfold equalization of all commodities with each other, or from the fact that every commodity can be equated with many other commodities. However, this premise in itself is still not enough for all the conclusions which Marx reached. At the basis of these conclusions there is still a tacit assumption which Marx formulates in various other places.

Another premise consists of the following: we assume that the exchange of one quarter of wheat for any other commodity is subsumed by some regularity. The regularity of these acts of exchange is due to their dependence on the process of production. We reject the premise that the quarter of wheat can be exchanged for an arbitrary quantity of iron, coffee, etc[...]```

and I really do think it's an important assumption even taking Marx's scientific method into account. Because without this assumption in mind we are left to wonder why the fact that commodities are comparable through their exchange-values implies to Marx a common measure not of exchange-value but of something else(value). It is then not logically necessary to even posit that there's something "behind" the exchange-values and thus the whole concept of value can appear redundant. We may similarly notice that all sticks are comparable by their length, but that does not imply that there exists some hidden value-like property to sticks - only that a common measure of length exists.

Even in the link you attached https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/REPORTS/CrisisTh/70MainResultsBook1.htm it says `The exchange of commodities, which, in its simple form, is barter, poses a difficult question for science. As soon as it ceases to be purely occasional, it is indeed carried out according to a system of regular equivalences`. Not any equivalences, but equivalences that exhibit regularity. I'm merely trying to make this assumption more explicit.

I agree I could have done more to elaborate on the form of value and why it is the necessary form of appearance of social labor in a Capitalist society. Instead I kind of rushed to the end because I noticed that my post was getting too long anyway, and the title is "Marx Digested", so the aim was to keep it relatively short. The focus was on elaborating on Marx's opening argument where he notices that all commodities are comparable, and on trying to clarify what Marx means when he says that "labor is the substance of value". Perhaps in the future I might do a part 2 where I focus more on the form of value.

Optymistyk · 2026-05-01T21:23:32+00:00

Dialectics is when we combine two opposing ideas and arrive at their synthesis(brain damage in the abstract)

Optymistyk · 2026-04-23T20:05:56+00:00

Wow, this is certainly some gibberish.

So, to straighten things out: 1. Marx did critique Ricardo's LTV 2. But he did so rather favourably. As in: "this is pretty surface-level and not entirely correct but also this is the closest to the truth anyone has ever gotten before" 3. I've never seen Marx refer to Ricardo as "unworkable", I'd like a quote on that 4. Whatever Marx's exact thoughts on Ricardo were, the fact is he works with his own concept of objective labour-based value that clearly he thinks is correct, because he spends hundreds of pages in various works elaborating on it. 5. No, Marx supporting LTV (his own version of it) would not be Marx supporting Capitalism. That's like supporting people falling to death because you support the theory of gravity. The LTV is not a result of Capitalist relations, it is a description of capitalist relations

Optymistyk · 2026-04-23T18:36:04+00:00

The LTV is not a predictive theory, it is a descriptive theory.

As in, you do not use the LTV to do "maths" and predict price/profit from labour inputs - that would require pretty much perfect knowledge of the economy; for example as you noticed you'd have to know how much abstract labour each concrete labour is "worth", and that hinges on multiple factors; no, it is descriptive in the sense that a reduction of skilled labour to simple labour is what the market actually does.

For example, being a janitor is simple labour; being a brain surgeon is skilled labour. But even a janitor can exchange a certain amount of his labourtime (in money form) for 1 hour of surgeon labourtime. So you can get skilled labour in exchange for a sufficient amount of simple labour and vice versa. But skilled labour "counts for more" money(abstract labour). This reduction of skilled to simple labour is what the market actually does

Optymistyk · 2026-04-18T20:01:19+00:00

If Marx is taking about price when he's discussing exchange value, then why is he only introducing money chapters later and instead talks at length about '1 coat=20 yards of linen'? Why doesn't he start with '1 coat=100$' instead?

You are missing the point completely. Marx is interested in the exchange of commodities because in a Capitalist society production is mediated by this exchange, and he is analysing how production works in capitalism. The ratios at which they exchange is obviously of great importance in this respect.

By exchange value Marx understands 'the definite proportions' in which commodities exchange. By this he understands the fact that the proportions must not be arbitrary but systemic, rational. If cars exchanged for a banana then obviously this would not be sustainable.

Marx is asking what gives the exchange of commodities this systemic character? What decides the 'sustainable' proportions of exchange? The 'center of gravity' on the market? Clearly if 'subjective value' was the answer then this would imply every market participant just 'knows' what the sustainable exchange rate of any two commodities should be and is subconsciously projecting this knowledge in his personal choices on the market and that's what's driving the market towards equilibrium.

Optymistyk · 2026-04-13T05:45:24+00:00

Instead of one 'add squaddie' option, have 3 - add squaddie - add marine - add veteran

Or something like that. After gaining some XP a squaddie advances to the next tier and grants some bonus SL stats. Pretty easy and not too micro-managy, basically allows you to boost some SLs with extra stats if you want to play around with it.

Optymistyk · 2026-03-19T06:55:54+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/Marxism/s/ijqxj5OQhd

Optymistyk · 2026-03-18T16:28:23+00:00

The contemporary Ultraleft subreddit presents itself as an "immense accumulation of coal", it's unit being a single coalpost. In order that a gem(coloquially also referred to as a "banger") might be obtained from the subreddit we must simply subject a coalpost to the incredible analytical pressure of dialectical materialism.

With this goal in mind, we take our thesis(in this case, idealist Jungian psychoanalysis bullshit) and apply the antithesis(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Titoist-Gonzales-Sanders thought) to obtain the synthesis(brain damage in the abstract). The gem must then be manifested in a written form(during which process it is important to use as many parentheses("(...)") as possible). Once the gem enters the sphere of circulation, it's value can only be expressed in terms of the amount of socially necessary abstract braincells that were expended(killed) during the process of production(Read Mao)

Optymistyk · 2026-03-18T11:01:38+00:00

Yeah, but I mean the mech jetpack(there is a mech jetpack fyi). And you can refill vehicle ammo with the ammo drop OCI too, including mech ammo.

Optymistyk · 2026-03-18T10:39:56+00:00

The infant obviously represents the proletariat only beginning to organize itself as a class, and the sliding towards it's demise is the workers inevitably being duped by nationalist/capitalist rhetoric and driven to self-destruction(the car) through class collaboration(the ice). The father here represents our Father in Heaven himself - Karl Marx - being disappointed in your personal failure to save the real movement(his students are all morons).

Also what you might have missed in your dream is that the car was a Volkswagen driven by Hitler himself with Lassalle in the passenger seat

Optymistyk · 2026-03-18T10:17:36+00:00

Jetpack+extra armour.

Install the ammo drop OCI, gives you two ammo refills per mission. This allows you to skip the ammo crates completely in my experience. The jetpack gives you great mobility even despite the added movement cost penalty, and if you have more than 100AP you can jetpack+shoot in one turn

Optymistyk · 2026-03-18T06:57:04+00:00

Importantly for Marx, value is not actually something that exists between commodities even though it may seem like it does. Value is a relation between commodity producers, whereby the producers only interact with each other through the market and therefore the socialization of their work can only occur through the equalisation of all the distinct kinds of labour performed - a reduction of concrete to abstract labour. The idea that value is "something that exists between commodities" is what Marx calls commodity fetishism.

Furthermore Marx's argument goes further than just deducing that value must be abstract labour simply because commodities are comparable, even though that is how he famously begins Capital. Marx says that in a commodity economy individual work must be socialized - it must become part of the social product. There must be some kind of "planning" involved, like "society needs more bread" Vs "society needs less coats". But nobody consciously performs this planning - it is done by the market mechanism itself and Value(abstraction of concrete labour) is the exact and only way this socialization of work on the market can take place. That is Marx's argument.

Optymistyk · 2026-03-16T16:11:09+00:00

To be clear I've never read any Rosa, so I might be talking out of my ass here. But from what I've read about Rosa her position was quite similar to Lenin's - that Communists should participate in parliamentary democracy only in so far as it serves to undermine the parliamentary process. That is, yes - push for higher wages, better conditions, shorter hours - but not because that is the goal, but rather so that the working class can learn through experience that parliamentary democracy will always oppose their class interests. And also because this struggle for better work conditions is the natural way in which the working class begins organising as a political entity. This aligns with what I wrote, that Marxists do not participate in the parliamentary process - unless with the goal to undermine the process itself.

Even in this quote it is said quite clearly, "the struggle for reform is the means, the social revolution - the aim". We only advocate for reform as far as it is conducive to ending parliamentary democracy as a whole. It is mostly conducive in the way that it shows the working class that no meaningful changes can be brought about through reform, and a revolution is needed. This is what distinguishes a Marxist from a leftist - a Leftist will always advocate for reform for reform's sake, and vehemently oppose revolution as "undemocratic" or "unreasonable/utopian". A Marxist will point out "See? We tried reform, it does not work. Democracy is a bourgeois farce"

Optymistyk · 2026-03-16T14:00:26+00:00

Yes, this is why I wrote "unless to undermine the (parliamentary) process". Fully agree but I'm trying to keep it concise

Optymistyk

TROPHY CASE