/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2620035
>bourgeois minority supports the bourgeoisie
ok

>>2621158
>his measure of value is marginal utility.
which is subjective
>thats why marx says utility is necessary for value.
necessary but not sufficient nor determinative of magnitude
>value is relative
nope
>that is also the point of marx's "value form"
Marx doesn't have a "value form"
>the law of diminishing marginal returns is applicable to non-economic activity too.
and what does that have to do with value in economic activity?
>i explained many threads ago
i mean you explained why you think that, but that doesn't mean its coherent or justified

>>2621562
>which is subjective
if we measure utility by output, is this unquantifiable?
>value necessitates utility
right, so value is "subjective", yes?
>value isnt relative
>Marx doesn't have a "value form"
okay, so youre admitting to never reading the first chapter of marx's capital. why are you even talking?
>i mean you explained why you think that
no, i reviewed jevons' entire book in many parts, citing details from the text to elaborate his arguments. the same way i expounded the text of antoine montchretien's "treatise of political economy" (1615) and menger's "principles of economics" (1871) for the sake of general education. you could learn something.

>>2621608
>>value necessitates utility
hey just want to point you might notice that this is not a quote. try going back and reading the text as it was written

>>2621608
>>2621562

Both of you are horribly wrong and misinterpret Marx's critique of political economy.


Value is an objective measure based from accumulated homogeneous human labor-power which is expressed as socially necessary labor-time produced in a commodity.

Socially necessary because of the standard necessary to make a profit without losing money from high costs of labor.

Therefore; value is a social relation. A social relation of the produced commodity that requires the sale of human labor-power initiated to labor-time for each commodity.

"The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value"- Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume One

And most importantly just as value is produced from use-value, it must contain a use-value as such to produce it objectively.
"Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value."- Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume One

>>2621657
>this is not a quote
its called a paraphrase. but lets read verbatim:
>>2621562
>"[utlity is] necessary".
whats the problem? 🤷🏻‍♂️
>>2621662
>Value is an objective measure
value does not exist outside of subjects.

>>2621679
Ah yes, production is just an imagination then, and you can sell a block of iron by selling an entire deposit.

Such nonsense

>>2621684
does value exist outside of subjects?

>>2621679
>its called a paraphrase.
usually when a person paraphrases they keep the original meaning
>but lets read verbatim:
>>"[utlity is] necessary".
now you are quoting what you said, not what i said

>>2621662
>Marx's critique of political economy
That is because they are not describing Marx's critique of political economy but some bullshit they made up

>>2622063
>not what i said
yes it is. you said utility is "necessary" for value.

>>2622073
>but not sufficient nor determinative of magnitude
in other words, Marx does not measure value with utility

>>2622080
>does value necessitate utility?
<yes
>okay, so you say value necessitates utility
<uhh, thats not a quote
>yes it is, look.
<no it isnt
>yes it is.
<okay fine - but its not a complete quote.
its impossible to talk to scoundrels like you.
>Marx does not measure value with utility
does value require utility to have magnitude?

>>2622082
>does value require utility to have magnitude?
nope

>>2622085
no?
lets read marx:
<Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
interpret this statement for me, please.

>>2622095
>nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing
"nothing" "the thing"
what is he talking about here? is he saying value has utility?

>>2622098
>what is he talking about here?
you are a marxist, right? you should know.
what is it which possesses value? commodities.
>is he saying value has utility?
he is saying that value is a function of utility.
he is adapting this from david ricardo (1817):
<If a commodity were in no way useful, - in other words, if it could in no way contribute to our gratification, - it would be destitute of exchangeable value, however scarce it might be, or whatever quantity of labour might be necessary to procure it.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch01.htm
the simple proof is to imagine creating something which no one wants (i.e. mudpies). since no one wants them, they have no value. thus as marx says, if you try to sell something thats useless, it creates no value.

>>2622101
>what is it which possesses value? commodities.
oh so commodities have to have a use? utility isn't a property of value?

you keep mixing things up its hard to keep track
>marx says
lets just stick to what you say i dont think you are qualified to speak for marx

>>2622102
>oh so commodities have to have a use?
to marx, a commodity possesses a use-value and exchange-value. as engels says, a commodity becomes a commodity in the act of being sold.
>utility isn't a property of value?
no, since marx says that use-values can exist independently from exchange-values (e.g. "value"). for a commodity to be exchanged, it requires utility however.
>i dont think you are qualified to speak for marx
i am quoting him directly.

>>2622107
>i am quoting him directly.
where does he say exchange-value is value

>>2622118
oh i see now, he does not. thanks mr smith!

>>2622134
i would suggest you read karl marx's capital vol. 1, chapter 1 for more information. i cant help you help yourself.

reviewing jean-jacques rousseau's "discourse on political economy" (1755):

rousseau begins by the aristotelian presumption between the teleology of the state from the common household, as yet interrupting this movement by that of patriarchal immediacy in the oikos (home) and the medium of law in the polis (state). i would here reference further ancient sources, such as plutarch (~100 AD) on the illusion of patriarchy in the oikos, which has immament to its function, the mediation of the interests of those which the patriarchal will is subordinated to (e.g. the man's wife and children), which inverts power, as the bondage of the master by the servant, in a precisely hegelian style:
<Discoursing on the power of women, he said: “All other men rule their wives; we rule all other men, and our wives rule us.” This, however, is a translation from the sayings of Themistocles. He, finding himself much under his son’s orders through the lad’s mother, said: “Wife, the Athenians rule the Hellenes, I rule the Athenians, thou rulest me, and thy son thee. Therefore let him make sparing use of that authority which makes him, child though he is, the most powerful of the Hellenes.”
https://lexundria.com/plut_cat_ma/8/prr
thus, rousseau is originally incorrect by assuming the distance between state and household being the procedure of law, as opposed to a "natural" relation of strength. rousseau, like aristotle, also considers the household to be most properly considered a monarchy, but a relation of mutual gain (this mirrors the "enlightened despotism" in french political thought at the time, such as quesnay's appraisal of china's rulership in 1767, paired with "lasseiz-faire" trade). rousseau says that the father ought to provide for children, and children are then to provide for the father later in life, comparing this relationship to servants - as yet, stating slavery to be "unnatural". this breaks from the ancient thought of aristotle, and the modern thought of locke, who both perceived slavery to be a state of nature, with children being "natural slaves". indeed, rousseau considers children to be "property" of the father, so is there perhaps a contradiction in his thinking here? but as for further distinctions between the oikos and polis, rousseau says that the private interest is best received by personal consultation, while the state is inherently corrupted by its personality. thus, a family is personal, while a state is impersonal.

rousseau then states that by "public economy" he refers to "government", which as yet is not the seat of "sovereignty". sovereignty, he says, is the motive power behind legislation, while the government is only able to execute what has been proposed (here then, the law is inwardly divided, between its spirit and its flesh). roussea then makes demonstration of the body politic, by its functions and faculties, all empowered by the life-blood of public expense. he says that like a good body, the blood ought to flow to all necessary sectors, reminding me of montchretien's body politic, in his 'invention' of political economy (1615). similarly, petty (1662-90) as a physician, was keen to compare the economy to a body (e.g. "anatomy"), with terms like "circulation" being common. rousseau then continues in this thinking. he concludes by seeing the "head of state" as the source of sovereignty, which seeks the health of the body politic, and is thus itself endowed with a will; a "general will", from which all law and order descends - "vox populi, vox dei" (what is written by rousseau in this text, but what is itself preceded as a whig tract, from 1709-10, with further precedence in the legacy of the archbishop walter reynolds, in 1327). of this general will, rousseau appears to stumble upon a concept of class, where he sees that the general will may become particular to a group, which substitutes private interests for that of the society. this reminds me of smith's polemic against the capitalists, that the interest of the worker and landlord accords to the interest of society, while the capitalist in his pursuit of profit, seeks to persuade the public that their interest is in his own. it is known that hume and rousseau had correspondence, and that hume and smith were also friends. rousseau then sees that there are only two forms of government (or "public economy"); the popular and the tyrannical.

after this lengthy introduction, he begins with the first part, wherein he attributes the establishment of civil government to purely lockean explanations, for the protections of life, liberty and property. he further sees that what secures these rights is law, which is based in human equality. here, he again distinguishes between the state of society (law) and that of nature, referring each to a separate will; the civil being manifest of public reason, while the private is that of natural necessity, but as mandeville (1714) and smith (1776) both demonstrate, private vices can become public virtues without certain interruption. rousseau further states the supremacy of legislation, and seeks its strictness in regard to obedience. here, i would refer to kant's legalism, as yet with the condition of "enlightenment" (e.g. independent reason), as opposed to external measures of conformity, since, as kant would understand it, one cannot be good by force, since one is not moved from within. an irrational being (i.e. a slave) requires force to be moved, and so is like an object rather than a subject (e.g. a rational soul). so, as a kantian, i see that the law must begin from within, in the same sense that civic law depends upon moral, or natural law (e.g. the spirit vs the letter of the law). rousseau is actually quite wise here however, since he sees that those who wish to impose the most penalties on crime, create the most amount of crime, such as cicero once remarked (44 BC):
<"More law, less justice"
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/47001/47001-h/47001-h.htm
thus, justice does not begin in the state, but necessarily begins as order, from nature. as rousseau has written, the state does not make the law, it only enforces it. he concludes by seeing that legislation must be conformed to the general will.

on identifying the general will, rousseau associates it with attributes of well-being:
<the rulers well know that the general will is always on the side which is most favourable to the public interest, that is to say, most equitable; so that it is needful only to act justly, to be certain of following the general will.
so then, good government can never be disagreeable to the general interest of society, and thus, revolt is unconditionally justified where it has popular appeal. civil disobedience is really just conformity to the general will, as the true sovereignty. rousseau finishes this chapter by a praise of china's governance, same as quesnay.

chapter 2 begins with the proclomation that once the general will is established, it is best to conform all particular wills to this end, since this is the source of virtue. he promotes patriotism as the "miracle" of virtue, where honour and duty reign. on the notion of universal embrace, he speaks wisely again, that love is enfeebled by its abstraction (such as freud also says, that libidinal economy is based on scarcity);
<The more I love mankind in general, the less I love man in particular [fyodor dostoevsky, 1880]
the boundary of love as an object then appears pragmatic, but also empirical, to his concerns for virtue.

for chapter 3, rousseau focuses on property, which he considers the most sacred right of civil society (above life and liberty), and for which the greatest concern must be employed (since he says that property is a right most sensitive to injustice, since its easier to steal than to kill, for example. he also says that though the property of an individual is tied to his life, it may still be inherited by his family, for example, thus property is sustained beyond life, in civil society). he then moves on to public finance, which he proclaims is caught between two tragic realities, that the voluntary contributions bring in little, and forced contributions are illegitimate. this he says, is a conflict between the state perishing, and property being violated. rousseau suggests a fixed budget which is agreed upon, and the perversion of justice in regards to these funds being an act of treason (something i would agree with). it was also socrates who attempted to economise the state apparatus for the purposes of virtue, by stating that politicians ought to receive a minimum salary for their activity, since only the dutiful would take a vow of poverty for the sake of guardianship. i agree, and would also treat the violation of this trust as treasonous, punishable by death. rousseau sees that as states diminish in justice, their expenses also increase. this appears to be a universal trend in history, where diminishing returns are given from increased investment. for example, 44% of the UK's GDP is made up of public spending, yet public services are failing. rousseau also says that as nations conquer and expand, they necessarily become more miserable by this burden of public expense. he is also inferring the diversion of a general will to a particular (class) will again, seeing that war does not enrich nations, but only enriches the rulers.

rousseau then discusses different forms of taxation, stating that the tax most suited to freedom is "real tax" (property tax), while the one most suited to slavery is a capitation tax (or "poll tax", a tax given as a fixed sum for each citizen, regardless of position). of course, rousseau never considered income taxes, since such a concept was far too slavish for his imagination. he does state however that a poll tax given equitably, according to proportion of income would be best, showing rousseau's concerns for wealth equality;
<what the poor pay is lost to them for ever, and remains in, or returns to, the hands of the rich
rousseau does look at the issue of imposing too great a tax on land however, showing that the countries with the lowest taxes have the best cultivation, while it is ths opposite elsewise. he supposes this is due to the lack of reward for labour given in the case where its product is stolen from him anyway. we might then say that people work harder where there is a greater incentive to do so (e.g. income). the solution he comes up with is duties imposed on exports, to receive more for what is sold, by relative monopoly, but also a duty on luxury items, while leaving the necessaries of life uncharged (here again, rousseau looks to china for solutions). here, rousseau makes an insightful argument, that if duties are only imposed on luxuries, then the rich will either fund the state by their consumption, or they will invest into necessary activities, thus relieving the state of more responsibility. this appears to be a finely economic point. rousseau also suggests sin taxes on things suggested as relatively prohibitable.

>>2622160
likewise

>>2622174
btw, you never actually interpreted this for me:
<Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
you can have one more chance, if you like.

>>2622188
if P then Q =/= if Q then P

>>2622195
so, when you wrote this: >>2622085
>nope [value does NOT require utility to have magnitude]
would you retract this, since its a contradiction against marx's own words?

>>2622214
we have been over this. commodities and value are different things. you should probably learn english before tackling such a big book

>>2622226
>we have been over this
oh, so you have accepted your contradictions against marx before. i must have forgotten.
>commodities and value are different things
to marx, value does not exist outside of commodity exchange. do you accept this?

>>2622237
>to marx
but what about you, you said value was transhistorical

>>2622243
to marx, value does not exist outside of commodity exchange. do you accept this? (y/n)

>>2622244
im pretty sure you said value existed in athens despite there being a lack of commodity exchange. do you accept this? (y/n)

>>2622246
>im pretty sure you said value existed in athens despite there being a lack of commodity exchange
its marx who said commodity exchange existed in athens, and that value existed as an intrinsic relation:
<In the first place, [aristotle] clearly enunciates that the money form of commodities is only the further development of the simple form of value – i.e., of the expression of the value of one commodity in some other commodity taken at random; for he says: 5 beds = 1 house […] What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. And why not? Compared with the beds, the house does represent something equal to them, in so far as it represents what is really equal, both in the beds and the house. And that is – human labour […] The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
but once again we return to marxism 101:
to marx, value does not exist outside of commodity exchange. do you accept this?

>>2622267
i think there is supposed to be a qualifier of "generalized", since that is why aristotle was prevented from discovering the truth

this is why precision is important

>>2622330
so, now that we have discovered that it was marx who did the thing you accused me of doing, we can move on.
marxism 101:
to marx, value does not exist outside of commodity exchange. do you accept this?

>>2622361
a dialogue is between two people. thats what the prefix "di" means. if you want to talk to yourself start a blog

>>2622493
you are talking to me right now.
if youre too scared to answer basic questions then stop replying. but i'll ask again anyway in case you want to grow some balls:

to marx, value does not exist outside of commodity exchange. do you accept this?

>>2622513
that statement is incomplete as already pointed out use your context clues and figure it out

>>2622539
>that statement is incomplete
what? the value relation is entirely self-contained within commodity exchange. value has no existence outside of this, so how is it an incomplete statement?

oh wait, youre waffling, as per usual.
serious question: why do you call yourself a marxist when youve never read marx? i dont get it. why do you accuse me of things that marx did, but dont get mad at marx? you are under a spell. break free from the cult, anon.

>>2622859
the exchange of commodities has to be generalized

>>2622944
what? marx makes distinction between the 4 forms of value, remember? stating that the most simple form, "the elementary form" is individual, and occurs at an "early date in history", with engels also stating that the "marxian law of value" holds from a time to possibly 6,000 years ago. the final form of value, money, occurs milennia ago, as marx says, so value is present, according to marx - hence, his example of aristotle.

in john bates clark's "distribution of wealth" (1899), he brings up the question of the "exploitation" of labour (ch. xxi):
<The last unit of labor gets its product, it may be admitted; but do the earlier ones get their full product? Does the income of the whole body of laborers tend at all, under natural law, to equal what they produce? Is there not an exploitation of all early increments of labor, if the law of final productivity works in perfection? […] If one man produces the value of a dollar and a half a day, while another produces the value of a dollar, and if each gets a dollar, there is a clear case of exploitation of labor.
clark footnotes this by attributing the controversy to heinrich von thünen, in his work "der isolirte staat" (1826) and his theory of "final productivity".

clark himself does not view any existence of exploitation, since he claims that the diminishing rate of final productivity is due to labour being multiplied by a lesser share in capital in its utilisation, seeing that all productivity apart from the final rate of wages (e.g. M0) is the work of capital, and so labour receives its full price in the end, while the product of capital is returned as profit. he would also then see that an increase in marginal wages is due to labour exploiting capital, by an appropriation of its fund. what clark fails to do however, is hypothesise this situation in a case where capital is not employed, or at least, has a limited employment. what he would find is that the curve of diminishing marginal returns would still apply, and so in this case, the labour of the former product would be "exploited" by the latter. this is rather contradictory however, since labour's product is constant, and so what is measured is not its total product, but the marginal rate of productivity. this resolve's clark's rhetoric then, by introducing an inverse quantity of TP to MP. here, we also discover the true source of profit.

put more arithmetically, clark perceives that the area of the curve BCE is the product of capital (returned as profit), while the final product of labour is at point C, which equates to the area of AECD as the fund for wages. what is immediately contradictory is that labour is assumed to have a fixed product, while capital has a variable product (reversing marx). its contradictory, since clark is supposedly measuring output, not input costs. he elsewhere sees that wages develop in quantity as the rate of interest declines, but this is doubly contradictory, since interest declines with the employment of capital, meaning that wages increase with the greater product of capital, leading to less profit - this is impossible, since if profit is due to capital, then more capital should mean more profit, not less. as yet, clark sees declining profits with more capital, the same way jevons and marx did.

to mend this diagram then, we need to introduce another area, in the space CXB, which we call "total product" as against "final product" (BCE). final product is variable, inverse to total product. we also have a constant quantity, which is the area AECD. we can see this as the wage, which equates with C, which is measured as against X, which now represents profit. thus, we reverse the quantities, where the the blue area is labour, and the red is profit. thus, profit increases as wages decline to their costs of production. we can see that profit declines in proportion to its employment because the product of labour multiplies, which must increase in duration to diminish its value. so then, labour must increase in value as capital is employed, appearing to contradict clark's notion that the product of labour is constant, rather than variable. what clark would say then, is that capital exploits itself, by tranferring its productivity into labour, which is not unfounded, since society surely grows in wealth with more capital consumption (the jevons paradox). this is rather curious then, that the capitalist undercuts his profits in the natural development of labour - just as marx sees, and so we can also suppose that the capitalist may destroy his capital to raise his profits.

this rhetorical "transference" of capital into labour can also serve as a legitimate basis for co-operative ownership of business, since labour becomes entangled within the processes of production in its income (e.g. cyborgs). of course, the truth is that this self-exploitation of capital is really just the maximum profit threshold, and what it signals is the rate of unemployment being at this margin, proving that unemployment is necessary in a capitalist system, and that capital is unable to develop beyond this point. thus, a post-capitalist system is able to be even more productive, since it would measure wealth from TP rather than MP (or piece work, rather than time-wages, such as what was implemented in the USSR).

piece work is also a practical example of the "narrow horizon" of bourgeois right, as marx has it; that each man receives what he gives, rather than getting paid the final product of the last worker employed (M0), which as heinrich von thünen (1826) has it, is exploitative, and so, time-wages are inherently exploiting, since the most is degraded by the least. so then, wage labour can only be practically abolished by paying persons by what they produce, not what the least person of a group of labourers produces, just like the inherent injustices of a group project in school.

>>2626848
do you post anywhere else? i dont want to keep having to come to this commie website for good posts

>>2627433
>do you post anywhere else?
no, and im just about ready to stop posting here tbh.
>good posts
my advice to everyone is to just read books.
in terms of my own posting, i can sum it up:

i was first persecuted in a das kapital thread over a year ago, where i stated that marx may be outdated due to his consideration of "money" as a commodity, particularly the precious metals, which contradicts MMT. attempting to prove this to stubborn dogmatists took hundreds of posts. in the midst of this also was an explanation of marx's "value-form" (i.e. A,B,C and D, which are all described in capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 3). here, i was accused of interpreting marx by a revisionist lense called "value form theory", but as per usual, i was simply quoting marx directly.

looking at the thread archives (#1), i appear to then fall into a dispute as to the metaphysics of value, criticising the "superstitions" of marxists, and further highlighting the anthropocentrism of the theory. here, i quote marx again (capital vol. 1, ch. 7, sct. 1), where he states that the reason man has "value" while an animal (or machine) does not, is due to his "imagination"; a nonsense claim, even criticised by someone like cockshott. i make an analogy between men and machines (e.g. slaves), saying that the only difference is the social relation of the wage, which purchases labour-power as a commodity, not as any particular "substance" - thus, if a machine or animal could be paid a wage, its labour would also have "value", since its a social construct, mediated by commodity exchange. this controversy is still misunderstood today, but is totally affirmed by marx's own words.

related to these ontological discussions is also the place of value in relation to price. marxists generally maintain a relation of essence and appearance (e.g. prices can diverge from values, but are ultimately regulated by them, and so are conformed to this tendency, like a centre of gravity). i am not bewildered by this assertion, but only find it epistemologically unsatisfying, since value here appears as an effect (e.g. of equilibrium) not a cause, if we are to attribute a quantity to it, especially if it is measured by labour-time, something immanent to wage labour, as a calculation. for this purpose, i empiricise value as a dual price, smith's natural and market price, as we may read from thread #1:
>>2057796
>marx's "value" is just smith's "natural price" of labour compared to the "market price" of goods, so value in marx's framework is still a factor of price.
<04-12-24
my position remains unchanged (from almost exactly a year ago); "value" is itself a price, not an "essence" underlying prices.

a smaller point i make in (#1) is that the devaluation of currency is not a devaluation of the "economy", its a devaluation of the wage, since the prices of all goods rise with "inflation" except labour. keynes makes the exact same point in a "a tract on monetary reform" (1923). thus, "inflation" is just income tax. the superstitions around the "value" of money disappear once we introduce class. you can also just use smith's distinction between nominal and real prices; real prices being measured from real income. at the end of (#1) enough people appeared to be persuaded that adam smith was a viable critic of capitalism, not a supporter of it, including OP, who dedicated (#2) to adam smith and his criticism of landlords.

unfortunately, the mods deleted all my posts site-wide before the archive, but it appears that a debate between dialectics and positivism takes centre-stage, with accusations that i was a follower of the austrian school being spread (of course, without a shred of evidence, like today). from what i can gather, the claim was that dialectics are superior to "formal logic", so i asked for a comparison, which was never given. i only received vain repetitions as the the "idealism" of believing that A=A, and so this discussion went nowhere. if i remember correctly, this also related to the contention over price and value, since i saw price as self-grounding (A=A=A…), while the assertion of essence (i.e. value) acts as a hegelian medium between prices.

after this, the question of value returns, where i qualify value as requiring utility, to which some respond by stating that utility can have a potential existence, making value present in commodities, before they are realised in exchange. this is a similar conversation i had with someone in (#5), concerning existence as opposed to reality. discussion then turns back to prior controversies, such as they always do, with the same vain repetitions and coarse misunderstanding, but all things are made for good, and eventually, truth prevails.

my posts seem to re-appear with a ferocious and systematic reply to many criticisms (2221541), even mirroring a discussion i had very recently in (#5), such as the historicity of value, with an equal plea at the end of the post, to see marx as the one writing what i am accused of:
>What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
<ecclesiastes 1:9
more historical questions appear, such as whether "commodities" existed before capitalism… now that i think about it, arent i just talking to the same person, continually proving his ignorance of marx, as he lambasts me for quoting his idol? i finally get "blood from a stone" (2234129) with an undying wish to have honour from my opponents in this verbal contest, yet it never comes, and apparently never will. in this nightmare blunt rotation, we then pass back into a discussion of fiat money.

after this, i am accused of conflating "exchange-value" with "value", an accusation continued in (#5) with the exact same rhetoric, that i have apparently misunderstood marx's argument in vol. 3 of capital; something i have already resolved by showing total the total price of production equalling the total value. it must be the same idiot pestering me after all this time; someone who proves to know nothing by their hypocritical babbling. i suppose you can judge someone by looking at the state of their critics. if i am hated by liars and fools, i must be honest. after this, i then elaborate marx's comments in vol. 3 (such as his decomposition of the value of capitalist commodities) and show it to correspond to smith's own components of price. after this is more hot air blown my way from people who seek a personal vengeance against my education of them. you can understand fascism by looking at these types, where they would rather burn books than be threatened by knowledge. the fact-checker and expert is the sworn enemy of the irrational mob, insulated by passion… after a time, i come to fact-check various claims about keynes, offering source material from his own work, also. once again, the issue of commodity money is brought up and this is where it is cut off.

now, in (#3) i speak a lot upon the topic of debt, especially from david graeber's work. my posts were once again mass-deleted here, so the archive is limited. another debate over philosophy appears to erupt in a thread concerning political economy, which is either concerning or encouraging. at a certain point, the question of michael hudson's supposed "antisemitism" is brought up, which due to my own philosemitism, causes me to sympathise with the inference, but i speak against any direct offence being committed. for this notion, i reference the nazi rudolf jung (1919) and his praising of silvio gesell (1916) by situating "interest" as the cause of exploitation (rather than profit). this is key, since it justifies capitalism by a form of antisemitism, and so gives us an insight into the nazi psyche. the attribution of "debt" as the main cause of social suffering then has its dangerous diagnosis.

after a time, my posts return, and i produce an impressive list of references for ancient economic thought (2378214, 2378239), with various sociological appendixes. here, i become more general in my education, citing historical and theoretical pieces, and beginning to review entire books and articles, even creating the first and only english translation of antoine montchretien's "treatise of political economy", book 1 (1615). this act of comprehending and reviewing full texts i find much more enjoyable than petty squabbling. the discussion also begins to turn more political, as i oppose marxist totalitarianism with liberalism.

we can actually read my first post on jevons here:
>>2494847
dated (25-09-25), or just over 3 months ago. i provide a comprehensive review, and really become invested in his sections on the LTV and his theory of wages. its here that i see the validity of his work. i then attempt to show jevons' continuity with the classical school; all fallen on deaf ears. i then keep writing about the theory of marginal utility, which has never ceased. my review of jevons is presented in 4 parts:
>>2499556
i then review menger's work in 5 parts:
>>2506577
and this ends thread (#3), but the last post (presumably by OP), speaks on my ideas:
>>2507152
>I noticed Smith anon that your strongest opinions seem to be: 1. Machines can create value rather than just transfer it. 2. Value is a social construct and not a magnitude of SNLT
i respond to this in (#4): >>2507508

(#4) begins by a hodgepodge of treaded-over apologies of all these former positions, which still echo out today. i shan't bore you with the details. the thread turns political, and i proclaim: >>2510247
>i generally consider myself a centre-left liberal
which is not an inaccurate statement. i then give people a basic education in classical liberal theory; something continued today, such as with: >>2622165
as an ambitious post, i then claim that marxism is opposed to socialism, and the left (by actually being pro-capitalist), a severely minority opinion: >>2510749
another banger was me proving that the private/personal property distinction was theoretically unfounded. most of the thread was centred around these sorts of bombastic controversies.

this current thread (#5) has been productive where i have been able to review texts or answer queries, but unproductive where i am forced to engage in the same old, settled arguments against bad-faith actors who reject evidence, and lack all sense of humility or dignity. as i say, i am basically incapable of meaningful input at this point, since i have basically said everything i have wanted to say. so, i hope some people have learned some things, since thats all i ever wanted.

consider this my last post.
… and thank you for consuming my labour.
😏🫡

>>2627683
Thank you, comrade Smithanon. I just recently found out about who you were and the lore etc like a month ago but I appreciate any sincere effort posters. You're a bright fellow, and I think that any marxist who believes they are "scientific" in their thought should welcome good faith disagreements. Science relies on refutation to strengthen claims, so the same should be applied to marxian views as well.

o7. I'm sorry to see you go.