• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

Where are the firearms at?

knock said:
The question of "idealism" - actually my political views are rooted in practice, not ideals. It's idealist to think you can change anything by voting. And it's defeatist to then give up on the human race. So we need something that's not idealist, and not defeatist. I mean, just for the pure romance of struggle, defeatism is a pretty fucking pathetic mode of existence :D

No, you've clearly got me mixed up with someone else. I'm a liberterian communist. Possibly an anarcho-syndicalist (these are real things by the way, that have been around for longer than your Tea Party and Ayn Rand). I have no interest in oversight agencies or centralised control of society. I believe in prefiguration, that the forms we take to achieve social change will be themselves be the change. I don't want to form some Party Elite to co-ordinate activity.

What's this "marxist economics"? I'm not a marxist, btw. But I've read some Marx, and what I've read comprises an analysis of capitalist economics. Marxist economics are an approach to understanding, and a critique of capitalism (and more but capitalism is their central target). They are not a system to be implemented in a new society.

When you say that the labour theory of value is interesting to ponder, it makes me scratch my head, because if you've understood it (and it's incredibly simple, just hearing the name is about enough) and it's relation to profit (surplus value) then you'll also immediately understand that capitalism is a system of economic exploitation, and only a dummy is in favour of being exploited.
Click to expand...

No need to lecture me on anarcho-syndicalism, man. I've interviewed Noam Chomsky and even he tacitly agreed that our two sides were idealistic, and unlikely to ever become status quo. You don't seem to understand the positive connotation of exploit. Would you rather not see the full use or benefit be derived from something/someone? Production should equal reward.
 
Just A Guy said:
No need to lecture me on anarcho-syndicalism, man. I've interviewed Noam Chomsky and even he tacitly agreed that our two sides were idealistic, and unlikely to ever become status quo. You don't seem to understand the positive connotation of exploit. Would you rather not see the full use or benefit be derived from something/someone? Production should equal reward.
Click to expand...

Sorry that was presumptious of me =D But you know, droppersneck might be reading ;)

What am I meant to say about Chomsky? That's great you interviewed him. I've read a few of his books. He says some good things, but he's not exactly exciting, and he doesn't "speak for" anarchism or even anarcho-syndicalism.

I don't think much of this word "idealist", something is either possible or it is not, if it is possible and (sufficiently) desirable it should be done. But anarchist practice is also designed to win rewards in the here and now, even if full communism is "impossible" that's no reason not to "do anarchism".

Positive connotation of exploit - to be used (by someone, to create their profit) positively? You've lost me.

I would rather live in a world of political equals, where we share decision making about how we spend our time in production, rather than a world where someone uses me for production in the service of profits.
 
Last edited:
I like this thread. Its interesting to hear people describe their political perspectives.
 
parttime crackhead said:
Knock - There's no point in voting, so what do you do instead? What are you doing to make this stuff you talk about a reality? What should other people be doing?
Click to expand...

Fair question. Not much, at the minute, because I'm not working (I am on and off but I am not sure about kicking up a fuss with people I consider friends) nor am I claiming benefits, nor am I a tenant, and these are the main circumstances that anarchists organise around. My circumstances will change soon enough though. Also I'm a late starter with politics, I had no interest in it until two or three years ago. So I've been reading and discussing stuff, and bothering EADD :D


edit: never answered the rest of PT's question.

what should people be doing

sometimes what I want to say has already been said better and more comprehensively than I could or have energy for ;)
 
Last edited:
Bearlove said:
I can never get my head around why people clap and cheer when a flight touches down :D (what were they expecting ?)
Click to expand...

Maybe they're just happy its landing in a airport and not in an office block :D
 
knock said:
Fair question. Not much, at the minute, because I'm not working (I am on and off but I am not sure about kicking up a fuss with people I consider friends) nor am I claiming benefits, nor am I a tenant, and these are the main circumstances that anarchists organise around. My circumstances will change soon enough though. Also I'm a late starter with politics, I had no interest in it until two or three years ago. So I've been reading and discussing stuff, and bothering EADD :D
Click to expand...

You discuss ideas on the internet. That's enough in it's own way.

In-laws (dead now) were anarchists big in the peace movement, war resisters international etc. Caused rows, I'm not a pacifist.
 
Last edited:
I thought the clapping just happened with Ryanair where everyone is actually a bit surprised.

Wouldn't catch KLM or BA customers applauding their pilots, more likely having an early drink in the lounge with them while discussing the flight plan.

Yeah I tell myself that SHM, but I'd rather be doing something in real life. I mean, one of the problems with the internet is no-one is ever willing to change their position on anything :D whereas the idea behind real life organising is that people can see for themselves that anarchist techniques work, and thus build confidence, and do it more.
 
knock said:
I mean, one of the problems with the internet is no-one is ever willing to change their position on anything.
Click to expand...

I'm heading out the door, but just wanted to say that I have learned a few things here and there, and been known to change my position on certain items any time I learn something big. Gotta keep an open mind...
 
knock, one thing I've never understood about the labour theory of value is how it takes into account comparative advantage. Tony raises cattle for beef, 10 units of it, a year. He could produce 6 units of wine, or 5 of beef and 3 of wine, but he is good at raising beef. Jean-Pierre is a winemaker, and produces 10 units of wine. Likewise, he could use his resources to produce 5 units of wine and 3 of beef, but making wine is his forte. So, J-P and Tony trade, and end up with 5 units of wine and 5 of beef. Both are better of than either could have been alone; who is being exploited? Moreover, as I understand it, the labour theory of value tells us that Tony's wine, having more labour caught up in the production of each unit, is better than J-P's. In fact, both J-P and Tony produce not only a higher quantity of their respective good, but a better quality. I'm not trying to catch you out here, I have just genuinely never understood how Marxist economics approaches this case.

-obligatory OT comment about Americans being a farcical nation of spunk trumpets-
 
babylonboy, the LTV doesn't require that someone is exploited whenever trade takes place; it shows that when profit is made by a capitalist, that profit is produced by workers in the form of surplus value - they get paid less than the value of the work they have done, and that is exploitation. I don't think Marxist economics has anything to say about exploitation in a barter trade. Not sure if I do either.

I'm still trying to work out the rest of your question.

edit: OK you're analysing a trade with a microscope, Marx doesn't do that (well he does but only in analysing the system, not in expressing his findings) he describes the system and overall effects. A non-specialist producing wine will indeed have to put more effort into inferior wine. But Marx talks about socially necessary labour time and by that he means the average amount of time required to produce a commodity by people skilled in their trade. There are many instances in science where we don't need to account for individual atoms in a system, we account for them as masses of atoms. That is, I believe, how Marx approaches such a question.
 
Last edited:
My understanding of the labour theory of value is that the value of a good can be ascertained by the labour taken to produce it. Producing wine is easier in France than in England, so English wine is more labour-intensive, and thus more valuable (please, correct me if I am wrong, I assume I must be, that's why I'm asking). Of course, in our world, value is subjective, so French wine is generally more valuable despite the ease of its production. I was kind of trying to explain comparative advantage succinctly, i.e. simply, yes in our world money acts as an intermediary store of value. I don't see how class really enters into the analysis of the given situation, please do enlighten me if it does.
 
Class enters the equation because you said exploitation. For Marx, exploitation occurs when surplus value is extracted from the working class by the bourgeoisie. I don't recall reading about any exploitation in a barter, and I don't see any need for it either. Exploitation requires exploiters and exploited - i.e. two classes of people. If you hadn't mentioned exploitation I wouldn't have mentioned class.

You haven't read my edit so I'll let you do that

Actually maybe you have, so maybe you need a clue? It's not socially necessary to produce bad wine in England at a greater cost (no-one would buy it) so it generally doesn't happen :D and so there is no need to explain such an odd scenario ;) Marx was describing the real world, not a world of text-book gotchas.


And I don't think that value is subjective, taste certainly is; value (according to the LTV) is not, and it accounts for subjective taste with the phrase "socially necessary".
 
Last edited:
OK, I think I'm understanding, but isn't "socially necessary" itself a value judgment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top