Let's have a class thread! It'll be fun!

[littlebabyjesus]

You mean, you agree with what butchers said, but not with me when I said the same thing in the OP?

Nice one. Thanks. A-fucking-again.

Um, I was trying to work out a way of looking at people whose wages don't seem to represent a good fit in the 'extraction of value' model, that's all. Your op didn't cover that, I didn't think, not that I think your op is bad.

And what do you mean 'A-fucking-again'? The last time you accused me of doing this you were wrong. And you are wrong this time too.

 

[butchersapron]

You were doing so well until the brackets. I cannot for the life of me see where I have said anything like that in this thread. Where did it come from? Or is it just the standard "I'm only having a revolution if all the revolutionaries agree", selfish individualism, defeatist wank?

10% of the population on the streets is the minimum you need to get it started. I'm not going to sit around excluding people because I prefer intellectual wanking to actual change. And I have always, and will always, oppose any revolutionary movement which thinks turning up at the victory lap with what happens next orders for the people wot won it for us is vital.

So fuck off the thread unless you want to engage constructively with it. I took a Trot on a revolutionary birthday night out last night, leave my thread alone for 18 hours, and it turns to shit with the fucking intellectuals playing the fucking biscuit game and expecting the masses to eat it at the end.

Fuck off.

You've gone mental. All you've posted recently is egotisical schemes and petty annoyances as principles. Do you remember when you cautioned others like you to shut the fuck up and listen - do that. Point one, shut the fuck up. Stop prodding people in chests, stop inventing lego-land fantasy and fucking listen. Stop talking.

 

[revlon]

Yes, it's embodied in 'him'.

which is realised when he gets paid for working ie kicking a ball about. If he doesn't kick a ball about he still gets paid.

His relationship to his employers is different than that of the groundsman, the tea maker and the bootboy. Not a worker in the traditional sense. Harvey's talks about the cultural significance of monopoly rent (it's uniqueness, co-opting and commodifying) rather than peoples relationships to the means of production.

 

[love detective]

You were doing so well until the brackets. I cannot for the life of me see where I have said anything like that in this thread. Where did it come from? Or is it just the standard "I'm only having a revolution if all the revolutionaries agree", selfish individualism, defeatist wank?

10% of the population on the streets is the minimum you need to get it started. I'm not going to sit around excluding people because I prefer intellectual wanking to actual change. And I have always, and will always, oppose any revolutionary movement which thinks turning up at the victory lap with what happens next orders for the people wot won it for us is vital.

So fuck off the thread unless you want to engage constructively with it. I took a Trot on a revolutionary birthday night out last night, leave my thread alone for 18 hours, and it turns to shit with the fucking intellectuals playing the fucking biscuit game and expecting the masses to eat it at the end.

Fuck off.

have you recently turned mental?

 

[butchersapron]

which is realised when he gets paid for working ie kicking a ball about. If he doesn't kick a ball about he still gets paid.

His relationship to his employers is different than that of the groundsman, the tea maker and the bootboy. Not a worker in the traditional sense. Harvey's talks about the cultural significance of monopoly rent (it's uniqueness, co-opting and commodifying) rather than peoples relationships to the means of production.

You're just describing monopoly rent as it works. What's the problem? Where is it?

 

[love detective]

have you recently turned mental?

just saw that butchers posted something similar as i posted this - ymu take a look at how you come across and how other people perceive the kind of stuff you spout on here

and two things for the record i) i am not nor have ever been a trot and ii) for you as a priviliged oxbridge type who has spent pages waxing lyrical abuot how bloody brilliant you are to finger poke working class kids who left school at 16 like i did for educating themselves in bodies of work that they see as relevant to gaining a sound understanding of capitalist social relations is pretty fucking rich

 

[ymu]

Um, I was trying to work out a way of looking at people whose wages don't seem to represent a good fit in the 'extraction of value' model, that's all. Your op didn't cover that, I didn't think, not that I think your op is bad.

And what do you mean 'A-fucking-again'? The last time you accused me of doing this you were wrong. And you are wrong this time too.

OK. It was butchers answer to a question so dumb that it didn't deserve an answer that prompted the "ooh you solved the riddle" sort of response.

Apologies, I thought it was the commodification thing.

 

[ymu]

You've gone mental. All you've posted recently is egotisical schemes and petty annoyances as principles. Do you remember when you cautioned others like you to shut the fuck up and listen - do that. Point one, shut the fuck up. Stop prodding people in chests, stop inventing lego-land fantasy and fucking listen. Stop talking.

Good idea. I've had about 4 hours sleep since midnight Thursday (which is why I have, indeed, gone 'mental' because that is exactly what happens when you can't fucking sleep because you're so fucking angry with everything that people are allowing to happen in this shithole of a country) and I got more interest in just hitting the fucking streets from talking to randoms in the most disgustingly posh city on earth than on here.

I finally grew out of urban. Yay me. You taught me almost everything that I learnt from here, and for that I sincerely thank you. Now carry on telling people what I said because you're the only person worth listening to around here so what I was actually trying to say is irrelevant because I'm just too fucking privileged to even understand.

I get it. Thanks.

See ya urban.

 

[TruXta]

FFS, get some sleep and get over it. You've seriously come across as weird in this thread.

 

[kabbes]

Unfortunately, it isn't as easy as "get some sleep" when you've got a sleep disorder. And four hours' sleep in five days would create strange effects in any head.

I hope you manage to get some much-needed z's soon, ymu.

 

[TruXta]

Unfortunately, it isn't as easy as "get some sleep" when you've got a sleep disorder. And four hours' sleep in five days would create strange effects in any head.

I hope you manage to get some much-needed z's soon, ymu.

Yeah I know, not managing that well myself atm. I could have phrased it differently, but the point still stands that ymu's making less and less sense.

 

[kabbes]

Of course she is. I'd be talking mostly in symbols if I'd had 4 hours in 5 days.

 

[xenon]

FFS, get some sleep and get over it. You've seriously come across as weird in this thread.

e2a never mind. just read above. Same centiment basically.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hope you get some sleep soon.

 

[audiotech]

Don't let the bastards grind you down ymu.

 

[Blagsta]

You avoid tax on the capital growth of your asset (the house).

Here is a good illustration of some Marx. You're on about the exchange value of my home. I'm interested in use value. I can't have both, nor do I want both. My home is a place to live for me and my family. It is not an investment. It may go up in "value", it may go down, it is of no interest to me. Even if it goes up, it's completely fictitious as all other houses go up too.

That you think of a home in this way is symptomatic of the problems of the capitalism.

 

[CyberRose]

You miss my point, I think ...

"But power is not necessary to attain the desired standard of living. "

ORLY?

Sorry I think we're talking about different types of "power"?

In my earlier post I was talking about power as in political power (ie the ability to influence political policies), whereas what you describe above is power in the work place.

When I said the middle class (my definition) has wealth but no power (which differentiates them from working class with no/little wealth and no power, and the ruling class which has wealth and power) I was talking about their ability to influence political policy.

But I accept what you say above - on an individual level (for example in the work place) my middle class will have power where my working class will not have power...

 

[TruXta]

Here is a good illustration of some Marx. You're on about the exchange value of my home. I'm interested in use value. I can't have both, nor do I want both. My home is a place to live for me and my family. It is not an investment. It may go up in "value", it may go down, it is of no interest to me. Even if it goes up, it's completely fictitious as all other houses go up too.

That you think of a home in this way is symptomatic of the problems of the capitalism.

Any easy intros to Marxist conceptions of use value? What makes it shift, relation to exchange value etc.

 

[frogwoman]

Unfortunately, it isn't as easy as "get some sleep" when you've got a sleep disorder. And four hours' sleep in five days would create strange effects in any head.

I hope you manage to get some much-needed z's soon, ymu.

this take care and see you soon. x

 

[Blagsta]

Any easy intros to Marxist conceptions of use value? What makes it shift, relation to exchange value etc.

Use value is purely the use you put something to. Exchange value is how much you can exchange something for. Clearly you cannot use something and also sell it at the same time. Harvey's first lecture goes through this.

 

[TruXta]

Use value is purely the use you put something to. Exchange value is how much you can exchange something for. Clearly you cannot use something and also sell it at the same time. Harvey's first lecture goes through this.

Hmmmmmm. You can use your body and sell it at the same time. Maybe a weird example, but what about intangible commodities like knowledge, which clearly have use value, but aren't depletable in the sense that tangible commodities are?

 

[DotCommunist]

The use-values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities. Use-values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange-value.”

metals always interested me in this context because for the likes of say copper or lead the use value would seem to bear direct relation to the exchange value BUT what you get weighed in isn't the same as big metal trading where the exchange value is affected by scarcity or costs of transport and storage etc.

 

[butchersapron]

Hmmmmmm. You can use your body and sell it at the same time. Maybe a weird example, but what about intangible commodities like knowledge, which clearly have use value, but aren't depletable in the sense that tangible commodities are?

Show me how it's productive.

 

[DotCommunist]

surely a non tangible thing becomes a product when it is exchanged, the use value being whatever the buyer puts it to and the exchange value what he paid for it. Selling your body comes under labour imo

 

[revlon]

You're just describing monopoly rent as it works. What's the problem? Where is it?

somewhere submerged deep within capital vol3? Monopoly rent as described by marx refers to rent on land for agriculture, it's been picked up and re-examined for the post-capitalism age to incude all sorts of cultural identities not around in marx day.

The product being created 'a football match', how is it consumed - what is it we are actually buying? How is surplus value extracted from those who create the means of that performance - the supertar footballer who may or may not play, down to the andy capp on turnstile 61? How is profit generated by extracting surplus value from the performers on the field? Is stevie gerrard a worker? Is he working class?

Maybe it is all down in monopoly rent but unless there some big fucking flashing arrows pointing to the actual references i'm still looking at vineyards and mines.

And by this i mean the football club as the owner of the product and everyone else employed by the club as the creators of the product.

also

This assumes the top flight footballer is a product (as opposed to a worker).

would've probably been a better phrasing.

 

[DownwardDog]

Use value is purely the use you put something to. Exchange value is how much you can exchange something for. Clearly you cannot use something and also sell it at the same time. Harvey's first lecture goes through this.

The use value, in as much as it means anything, is subjective. You are above such materialistic concerns, borne aloft on crimson wings of Marxist piety, but for many (most?) people part of the utility of a house is that it (usually and in the long term) is an appreciating store of wealth.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The use value, in as much as it means anything, is subjective. You are above such materialistic concerns, borne aloft on crimson wings of Marxist piety, but for many (most?) people part of the utility of a house is that it (usually and in the long term) is an appreciating store of wealth.

You can't simultaneously enjoy the full utility of the house as habitation and as 'store of wealth'.

Louis MacNeice

 

[kabbes]

DownwardDog, how are you going to realise this appreciating value?

 

[DownwardDog]

DownwardDog, how are you going to realise this appreciating value?

MEW

 

[frogwoman]

when it has gained sufficient value you will be able to sell it i guess. i do see his point here. the problem is that many people wont be in a position to do that.