4 ms·

>but if people will pay higher, then there is value. It's important to note that this is a particular kind of value, a neo-classical definition. The Marxian on

by ue_ 9y ago

>but if people will pay higher, then there is value. It's important to note that this is a particular kind of value, a neo-classical definition. The Marxian one is independent of what people will pay for an item; for example, land, honor, titles of nobility etc. Have no value.

wayn3 9y ago
And thats why Russia is the lone remaining superpower. They have everything, nothing costs anything and their people are free to do as they please. Luckily, philosophers do not believe in the fact that their different ideas actually compete with each other.
- ue_ 9y ago
  I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Marx was describing a reproducible commodity economy, i.e most of what we have within capitalism, with his theory. Besides this, Russia is a capitalist country. My apologies if you weren't stating that it wasn't.
  - wayn3 9y ago
    And capitalism is a term coined by Marx to denounce the idea that in a free society, outliers naturally occur. I don't want to live in a country that is run exclusively by peasants. That happened, successfully, in russia. In the 1920s. And the result was not pretty. Sure, russia is "capitalist" now. Capitalist means absolutely nothing in terms of philosophy. Its just a word used by marxists to express their annoyance with a vague concept that results in the creation of value (and they obviously have no problem with value, but the returns should absolutely, entirely, end up in the hands of the peasants, not some hokey dokey CEO. That aside, russia was not "capitalist" for a long time, and still suffers the consequences. Specifically in the case of Russia, they have another big problem - which is the idea that they are still somehow the core of the USSR and have to restore that thing, instead of trying to fix their real issues. People seem to forget that there are janitors at microsoft who drive ferraris. They took stock options over vacation time.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I don't want to live in a country that is run exclusively by peasants. That happened, successfully, in russia. No, it didn't. The Leninist vanguard were not all (or even largely, especially at the highest ranks) peasants.
      - wayn3 9y ago
        Is this the "no true communism" argument?
        ekiru 9y ago
        The government of Russia in the 1920s was not composed of peasants; it did not even consider peasants as its allies. It largely considered them to be class enemies of the proletariat and counter-revolutionary. During the 1920s, it began its efforts to collectivize them. The peasants resisted these efforts initially. Ultimately, the effort succeeded only when the Russian government expropriated the peasants' property, and it deported, it imprisoned, and/or killed millions of them. That occurred mostly in the early 1930s, but Russian rural policy in the 1920s was a persistent struggle against the resistance of the peasants to the government's policies aimed toward collectivization. Saying that Russia was not ruled by peasants is not a "no true communism" argument, it is an accurate reflection of the continued efforts of the Russian government throughout that period and beyond to coerce the behavior of the peasantry and to break down their existing social structures and communities.
        wayn3 9y ago
        Oh I get it. "Peasants" are not land-owning farmers. Peasants are menial labor on farms. They are part of the proletariat. Didn't mean to confuse you.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > "Peasants" are not land-owning farmers. Peasants are menial labor on farms. Even in feudal economies, peasants had individual or collective property interests in land (serfs and slaves might not, but those are different than peasants, and serfdom had been abolished in Russia generations before the Revolution.) Russian peasants at the time of the Revolution generally were individual landholders because of the recent breakup of collective ownership (other places similar reforms were implemented eventually led to most former peasants ending up as wage laborers as large capital interests bought up agrarian land, but that hadn't had time to happen yet in Russia, and the de-collectivization was still popular among peasants, which is probably a big factor in why peasants in Russia were seen as class enemies of the proletariat by the Bolsheviks; they were, if only tenuously and transitionally, essentially situated like members of the petit bourgeoisie.)
mnarayan01 9y ago
I totally missed it before your comment, but I think you're right, in particular: > As with all IP, once created the value of a copy is pretty much zero. It's a simple case of supply and demand, the supply is infinite so logically the price is zero. Read in a certain way (e.g. use of value vis–à–vis price), this is super Marxian.

by ue_ 9y ago

wayn3 9y ago

And thats why Russia is the lone remaining superpower. They have everything, nothing costs anything and their people are free to do as they please. Luckily, philosophers do not believe in the fact that their different ideas actually compete with each other.

ue_ 9y ago
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Marx was describing a reproducible commodity economy, i.e most of what we have within capitalism, with his theory. Besides this, Russia is a capitalist country. My apologies if you weren't stating that it wasn't.
- wayn3 9y ago
  And capitalism is a term coined by Marx to denounce the idea that in a free society, outliers naturally occur. I don't want to live in a country that is run exclusively by peasants. That happened, successfully, in russia. In the 1920s. And the result was not pretty. Sure, russia is "capitalist" now. Capitalist means absolutely nothing in terms of philosophy. Its just a word used by marxists to express their annoyance with a vague concept that results in the creation of value (and they obviously have no problem with value, but the returns should absolutely, entirely, end up in the hands of the peasants, not some hokey dokey CEO. That aside, russia was not "capitalist" for a long time, and still suffers the consequences. Specifically in the case of Russia, they have another big problem - which is the idea that they are still somehow the core of the USSR and have to restore that thing, instead of trying to fix their real issues. People seem to forget that there are janitors at microsoft who drive ferraris. They took stock options over vacation time.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I don't want to live in a country that is run exclusively by peasants. That happened, successfully, in russia. No, it didn't. The Leninist vanguard were not all (or even largely, especially at the highest ranks) peasants.
    - wayn3 9y ago
      Is this the "no true communism" argument?
      - ekiru 9y ago
        The government of Russia in the 1920s was not composed of peasants; it did not even consider peasants as its allies. It largely considered them to be class enemies of the proletariat and counter-revolutionary. During the 1920s, it began its efforts to collectivize them. The peasants resisted these efforts initially. Ultimately, the effort succeeded only when the Russian government expropriated the peasants' property, and it deported, it imprisoned, and/or killed millions of them. That occurred mostly in the early 1930s, but Russian rural policy in the 1920s was a persistent struggle against the resistance of the peasants to the government's policies aimed toward collectivization. Saying that Russia was not ruled by peasants is not a "no true communism" argument, it is an accurate reflection of the continued efforts of the Russian government throughout that period and beyond to coerce the behavior of the peasantry and to break down their existing social structures and communities.
        wayn3 9y ago
        Oh I get it. "Peasants" are not land-owning farmers. Peasants are menial labor on farms. They are part of the proletariat. Didn't mean to confuse you.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > "Peasants" are not land-owning farmers. Peasants are menial labor on farms. Even in feudal economies, peasants had individual or collective property interests in land (serfs and slaves might not, but those are different than peasants, and serfdom had been abolished in Russia generations before the Revolution.) Russian peasants at the time of the Revolution generally were individual landholders because of the recent breakup of collective ownership (other places similar reforms were implemented eventually led to most former peasants ending up as wage laborers as large capital interests bought up agrarian land, but that hadn't had time to happen yet in Russia, and the de-collectivization was still popular among peasants, which is probably a big factor in why peasants in Russia were seen as class enemies of the proletariat by the Bolsheviks; they were, if only tenuously and transitionally, essentially situated like members of the petit bourgeoisie.)

mnarayan01 9y ago

I totally missed it before your comment, but I think you're right, in particular: > As with all IP, once created the value of a copy is pretty much zero. It's a simple case of supply and demand, the supply is infinite so logically the price is zero. Read in a certain way (e.g. use of value vis–à–vis price), this is super Marxian.