>>2627433>do you post anywhere else?no, and im just about ready to stop posting here tbh.
>good postsmy 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i was first persecuted in a das kapital thread over a year ago, where i stated that marx may be outdated due to his consideration of "money" as a commodity, particularly the precious metals, which contradicts MMT.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 empiric
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.