this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
-18 points (38.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43989 readers
527 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fully with you on productive vs. extractive capital. I try to make sure all my investments are ethical and productive.
Mankind be Vigilant .we always loved you
yesterday was late...
important distinction is that you are with me on that comes from the Fact that you are working class.
The Ruling Class (/ Elite / Passive Income Creditor Class / Bourgoise / Ownership Class / extractor Class ) lives from YOUR Labour , they are NOT with me on that .
(Labour is the source of all Value)
passiv income lives my others peoples Labour --> Parasiticlly , So it gonna have an Ideology that allows them to live by other peoples labour .... And they will create a System that protects their Passiv income over all else .. and they will not allow anybody to question their Income Or their System..
And yes thats the System we have.
"the Debt must be Payed! is the higest Maxime " .. take the withering America for example...
the Interest has now exceded ALL other expanses .. it gets complettly suffrocated by the Passiv income Class.. No healthcare , Not Pensions , No nothing.. no houses .. rent 1/2 of the Income .. etc. And who is guilty on that Misery .. ? They are .. Even the Bible and the Torah allready forbade that sin.. Because they Rule and they know of nothing that is more Holy than "Their Income , by YOUR Labour" .. they will literally burn the planet down before they gonna give back even tiny fraqments of what they have taken ... they are the CLASS ENEMY ... the Parasite .. because imagine a America freed from its Debt (Debt Cancelation) ? or an America freed from its Rent (Housing Reform /Landreform) .. It will never happen..
Because the "Common Class Interest" of all your Rulership will be to protect their Income. ...Not America ...
Knowing to differentiate beetween "Active and Passiv Income" / "Working Class & Bourgoise" / "Plebs and Patricians"
is Called "Class Counsiousness" , and the hole eternal War beetween Passiv (suffrocating) and active (building) Income is Called the "CLASSWAR". ... you probably have heard Marx:
"The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes"
revolutionary reconstruction is the like Golden Age , while the Common Ruin of the Contenting Classes is the "Dark age" , the Rulership of the Suffrocating capital that is threatend by all that is good.
thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
See, this is part of why I'm not a communist. Not all value derives from labor, some is naturally occuring.
The other sticking point is the inherent value of labor. In communist theory (as I understand it) the value of the final product is equal to the value of the labor required to produce it. But this means that if the product is, well, crap, then the labor put into it is without much value. That's a no-sell for me. You can say that the value of the labor was wasted, but to say it doesn't exist? I can't agree to that proposition.
this is factually wrong. all value derrives from labour if not ,name a single object created without labour. What ever is "Naturally occuring" still needs Labour to Harvest or to transport or even to watch it and enjoy its beauty.
What labor is required for a sunset, or a clear mountain stream? What labor created the jet stream?
To harvest the ocean of fish requires labor, but to stock it did not. And a balanced ocean ecosystem has value whether or not it is utilized, as does a forest or the clear mountain stream.
you have to walk there ..
Edit: wait needs more indeep...
So you can not sell the Jetstream you can sell the Jet that uses the Jetstream , the Sailoboat that uses the Wind or you can build it yourself all of which need labour , without this labour the "Jetstream" has no value.
we talk about Base Value NOT "Superstructure" Value , thinks you can touch .. not like .. "i enjoy sunsets value" but even that requires some labour or at least the absence of other labour necessities.. , you made absent before hand by labouring.. Freetime also derives its value and existance FROM Labour.
And you've exemplified the heart of my gripe: There is more to value than economic value. I'm not talking about selling the jetstream, but about how it provides stable weather patterns to both the American Midwest and Central Europe. There is value in that.
I appreciate your base / superstructure argument but I don't understand it without further explanation. A lot of the superstructure half do seem related to production: education and art, to name just two.
yes the Superstructure.
Superstructrue is exactly this unmessurable mass that is not "konret" that doesnt have owners , can not be divided or counted etc..
Art is aexample on how it work. Like "who Produces the Art for whom" is the "Relation of Production".. The Flemish Masters painted those tha t could affort their Product the Elite .. therefore the Art from this era is filled with many many Ruler and Aristocrat Paintings , showing their Welth and Power... In the Sowjet Union the Painting where comissend by the working class (or in a working class Ideology) the Painting therefore Depict Socialist Themes etc. "Collectivism / Struggle / Classwar" ...,
and dont forget the Mirror relation <--->the other Art the "rebell" side of art is also shaped by the "Base" , even if it critizes it , it will critize its base..
Btw this "superstructure and Base" thing is the "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" .. very usefull concept to analyse the world with. Its like the "Atom of the Process" .. there is always a "Base Need" that will shape "its Superstructure" ....
Crimea is Ukrainian in western ( "Superstructure") .. but certainly not in the messurable and touchable Soil ("Base" ) .
and as Base shapes the Supersturcture --> every day that passes without Crimea beeing owned by Ukraine --> it belongs to Ukraine a little less --> until its gonna be like California and Mexico <-- --> And the Mirror relation is Ukraine know about this ! --> therefore wants to retake it (in Soil & Base) ,
Not in the "Superstructure" ,in here Ukraine owns it allready , so there is no Issue .. the Issue again .. stems as always . from the Base ... that is Russia "actually" owning it.
Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away. The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being.
Nature is the test of dialectics, and it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis natureβs process is dialectical and not metaphysical, that it does not move in an eternally uniform and constantly repeated circle, but passes through a real history. Here prime mention should be made of Darwin, who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical conception of nature by proving that the organic world of today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development that has been in progress for millions of years.