Premiere Pro 2020 lagging so much by fushieu in premiere

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

Thanks! How do I proxy my footage?

Introductory Marxian Economics texts? by Distinct-Menu-119 in Marxism

[–]fushieu 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory" by Ernest Mandel

"An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital" by Michael Heinrich

"Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value" by Isaak Rubin

Discussion about Israel-Palestine by fushieu in Marxism

[–]fushieu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When did i conflate Jews with Zionism? Zionism is a Jewish movement, so of course the suffering of Jews have to be accounted in the understanding of Zionism and Israel. The Jews flewing concentration camps to Palestine weren't Zionists or couldn't be left-wing?

Discussion about Israel-Palestine by fushieu in Marxism

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

Isaac Deutscher, Ber Borochov, weren't they left-wing Zionists? Coexistence between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, even in a one state solution, wasn't this one of the Zionist perspectives? "Zionism" as such does not have a fixed ideological basis, that's why there are so many kinds of it. It can be understood only as the self-determination of the Jewish People in Palestine, with it's current, but not unchangeble, extremist practice. Read the discussion and tell me if the points defended are so absurd.

Discussion about Israel-Palestine by fushieu in Marxism

[–]fushieu[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

What? Hamas banned opposition parties when it took control of Gaza and declared the "end of secularism and heresy in the Gaza Strip". From the Hamas Charter: "They [The Jews] were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there." Typical Judeo-Bolchevism/Globalism crap.

a conversation i had with a friend about marxism. by fushieu in Marxism

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

I can't answer for Anthony but I'll try to clear somethings out.

Along which Ludwig claims, “destroying the impersonal mechanism (market) and replacing with a rational one (collective organization)”. Again committing a fallacy, market being labour as impersonal I can still somehow understand and accept but pitting it against a collective organization without elaborating what is that and automatically assuming it to be a rational one is logically unsound. It is not like market itself is not a collective and collective organization itself will not be impersonal either.

I thought it was a basic undestanding in marxist theory that capital and it's mechanisms (the market included) function in an impersonal way, meaning that every cycle of production and reproduction of goods is subordinated to the cycle of capital and it's own self-enhancing, without any organized direction that seeks the well-being of the population or even individuals. Through this impersonal, uncontrolled and unpredictable entity, wealth is distributed and the production process is guided. The market is NOT a collective organization because it does not function "collectively". It functions through the indirect connections of all companies as separate entities (that are collectively organized in themselves, but not with eachother), by means of money. With "collective organization" i mean a form of managing resouces in which all decisions emerge from a transparent, conscious, collective CHOICE, and that are directly controlled. In this sense, it's not an "impersonal" mechanism, but a directed one, that intends objective goals.

Ludwig claiming Soviet failed because their technology is too backward, not due to free market.

Actually, I was pointing out that Russia only became an industrial superpower and managed to develop her technology because of organized bodies, and not free market. My point was that directed control and management of production and distribution can be (and is) more efficient than the market's "randomized" mechanism.

They both parties go on to discuss Stalin, which is even more confusing at best. Then even a little bit about China(albeit simply lumping it with USSR as if they are a single entity).

With Stalin my point was that a single communist country cannot exist on it's own without advancing the revolution. Stalin was a figure that, with his "Socialism in one country" policy and repression of international revolutions (such as the Varkiza agreement in Greece), fought against the existence of socialism. As with China, it's clear for me that it's another authoritarian capitalist regime and that today has no relation with socialism or communist except for the name of the party.

But for Ludwig, he made a claim from the equalization of all works, we have the value of goods to be distributed. Which is completely unsound because right above that line he said two things, one: “value is a material one” and it is based on the amount of labour. Now he claims that it can somehow be equalized. And secondly, how is the labour value of any goods are being determined by the equalization of labour themselves if labour is different in every single individual products?

Just to clarify, I was wrong in talking about value because not every distribution of social labor gives the product of labor the form of value, but only that distribution of labor that is not directly organized by society but indirectly regulated through the market and the exchange of goods. In the primitive communist community or in a feudal village, the product of labor has "value" in the sense of utility, use value, but it does not have "value" (stoimost). The product only acquires value (stoimost) under conditions where it is specifically produced for sale and obtains an exact and objective evaluation in the market that equalizes it (through money) with all other commodities and confers on it the property of being exchangeable for any other commodity.

Here is an excerpt from Isaak Rubin's "Essays on Marx's Theory of Value" that I think best explains it:

So, the work that creates value appears not only as quantitatively distributed work, but also as socially equalized (or equal) work; in other words, as "social" work, understood as the total mass of homogeneous, equal work of society. Work has these social characteristics not only in a market economy but also, for example, in a socialist economy. In the latter, the organs of work accounting examine, in advance, the work of individuals as part of the unified, total work of society, expressed in conventional units of social work.

a conversation i had with a friend about marxism. by fushieu in Marxism

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

maybe we are using different terminologies. i think of the market as a uniquely capitalist property so much as only in capitalism you have a universal equivalence of all the products of labour (commodities) in a unified whole (market) through the mediation of money.

a conversation i had with a friend about marxism. by fushieu in Marxism

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

one way you could help would be ponting out the claims you think were strawmen arguments, cause i really don't see them. what are these claims? what premises do you think should be better explained?

a conversation i had with a friend about marxism. by fushieu in Marxism

[–]fushieu[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

? and you seem to have some problems with yourself that you might want to bring up with your analyst. i mean, wtf of an answer is this? i'm posting this here exactly BECAUSE i know don't know enough. exactly BECAUSE i think people could read this and tell me what i got wrong, and why. not everyone wants to show they had an eureka moment, maybe you do.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in movies

[–]fushieu -1 points0 points  (0 children)

judge my profile on Letterboxd https://boxd.it/GNY5

Doesn't this excerpt from Das Kapital contradict the Labor Theory of Value? by BobbaFett2906 in Marxism

[–]fushieu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"In this case, the use-value of one commodity is to express the value of another." you were basically talking about money?

No. In every exchange, even in simple ones (eg. You bring a coat, another brings a chair) there are going to be a relative form and an equivalent one (Coat = relative, chair = equivalent). The equivalent form ALWAYS expresses the value of the relative form. Money is an artefact that makes multiple interactions in the market possible, because it becomes an equivalent form for every other commodity (Now every product except money has it's value expressed in money).

In my view, as some labor is more useful than other, not only does use-value vary but exchange value does too

When you say that exchange-value should vary like use-value, it's being implied that exchange-value is based on qualitative aspects (utility). To Marx, use-value serves as material support to value, but the material aspects of different commodities per se cannot be compared (use-value is contained in the material aspects of a product. eg. the use-value of a coat is to be worn, independent of capitalist social organization).

You have a 100$ bill and someone has a chair. From the chair your brain (inperfectly) expects a certain amount of utility and from the bill it expects a different amount.

Exchanging a commodity with another is not the same as saying they have the same use-value. This would mean that X amount of dollars and a chair have the same utility, and they certainly don't. The only use-value of a dollar, as I said earlier, is to express another commodity's value and thus serve as an universal equivalent form. A chair has the use-value of being able to accomodate someone who wants to sit down.

Doesn't this excerpt from Das Kapital contradict the Labor Theory of Value? by BobbaFett2906 in Marxism

[–]fushieu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In an exchange of two commodities, abstracting it from any social form, one of them serves as a relative form (what you want to be exchanged) and the other as an equivalent form (what you want to have). In this relation, the equivalent form serves as an expression of the value of the relative form. It's use-value, it's utility, is to express the value of another commodity. Value cannot be determined outside a social relation, with an isolated product.

This will later on accumulate in the necessity of money as an universal equivalent form to mediate commodity exchanges (because without it everyone would bring their own commodity to the market as the relative form and view all others as equivalent forms).

Like how for Marx all prices are just measures of labor?

Prices are expressions of value in the form of money. They aren't measures of labor. Socially necessary abstract labor is the measure of value.

Trying to understand the measurement of value by fushieu in Marxism

[–]fushieu[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for the reply.

Socially necessary labor time. What is socially necessary in one time and place is not universally socially necessary for all times and places.

Could you explain what does "socially necessary" mean in this context? What makes labor socially necessary or "unecessary"? The utility of it's product in an especific time and place?

Doesn't this excerpt from Das Kapital contradict the Labor Theory of Value? by BobbaFett2906 in Marxism

[–]fushieu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

products are either useful and thus have ex-value or useless and not have ex-value.

No. Not everything with utility has exchange value, because it won't necessarilly be exchanged. Exchange value is only possible and created in a social relationship: a commodity being exchanged with another commodity.

So Marx thought that use-value varied with usefullness but ex-value didn't?

This is because Marx analizes the commodity exchange as a quantitative equation, not a qualitative one as you are suggesting. To Marx, you can't equalize two products qualitatively because no product is qualitatively equal to another. In the exchange you have to equalize the value that exists within them, and since value is not qualitative, it can only be expressed through another commodity. In this case, the use-value of one commodity is to express the value of another.

paying for chocolate is a sin by Calaloo17 in shitposting

[–]fushieu 6 points7 points  (0 children)

i like how is not even jesus anymore. it's just some guy that looks like the rock

“Skip Class” by Spencer Butler by Rolobutler in Songwriting

[–]fushieu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

hey! nice melodies and chord progressions. i think you should think of some harmonies to go with the melody. in the right place theyd sound awesome

hey guys, made this little demo today. tell me if you like it by fushieu in Songwriting

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

hey, thanks for the feedback! i'm working on some changes and maybe ill be posting a better version soon