4 ms·

> Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value Value for who? Value as determined by who? > Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'd

by vrganj 2mo ago

> Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value Value for who? Value as determined by who? > Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'dying'. You're commenting on it right now. Rivers here are drying out. Glaciers are melting. Forests are burning. How long do you think we can keep going like this? > Maybe compare the world of 2026 with that of 1900 and the quality of life for people in general and our concern for the life on this planet. You can compare the results of those 126 years right here: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/01/23/learning/GlobalTempGraphLN/GlobalTempGraphLN-superJumbo.png https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/01/23/learning/GlobalTe... Regarding your quality of life claim, let me refer back to the burning forests, drying rivers etc. Would you call that an improvement? Clearly, its not going great. And action is actively being sabotaged by the most capitalist major power: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/climate/trump-climate-international-bullying.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/climate/trump-climate-int... So how do we proceed with all this in mind? How long can we keep optimizing for capital self-reproduction at the expense of the base conditions we survive on? The incentive structure does not allow for making the systemic changes required for continued thriving of humanity. What good is it then? How is it anything but a suicide pact?

nec4b 2mo ago
>>Value for who? Value as determined by who? Value for us, real people who have needs. We decide what we want to buy and not some apparatchik on their pedestal. >>Rivers here are drying out. Glaciers are melting. Forests are burning. As if this never happened before capitalism?
- vrganj 2mo ago
  Who is "us"? Because in capitalism, only people with capital get to decide what has value. The values of the poor are not reflected. The values of the indigenous are not reflected. The values of the non-capitalist are not reflected. The value of the unborn is not reflected. The value of nature is not reflected. The glacier doesn't participate in the market and neither does the river. Are they without value? > As if this never happened before capitalism? That's correct. Look at the graph I posted above, you'll notice that things weren't always this hot. Before capitalism they sure weren't.
  - nec4b 2mo ago
    No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most, because the capitalist first and foremost need to provide value to us. I'm not sure what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? Isn't it evident people assign great value to natural resources. The world is a bit older then 120 years in your graph. There were a lot of natural disasters that wiped quite a lot of living beings from the planet.
    - vrganj 2mo ago
      > No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most That is just straight up not true. The tribal elder in the Amazon, who's forest capitalists are burning down never got asked how he defines value. The child not yet born was never asked if it's atmosphere should be heated up for data centers. Neither was the fish in the river or the river itself for that matter. > what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? I'm not sure what's unclear. The glacier melts as a result of somebody who's not the glacier deciding "value" on a market. In reality, the market doesn't decide value. Value is not price. The market decides power structures and violence distribution. The glacier has a value completely separate from the market, and not derived from it. > There were a lot of natural disasters Why are we pivoting to natural disasters now?
      - nec4b 2mo ago
        How exactly can you ask an unborn child, a river or a glacier what it wants? Did the Yugoslav dictator ask Kosovars what they want before violently oppressing them?
        vrganj 2mo ago
        That is precisely the point - you can't! I'm glad we got to this shared understanding in the end. So I'd appreciate if we stopped pretending the market did, when it fails to account for anything that's not somebody with money. How could it possibly assign "value" that way?

by vrganj 2mo ago

nec4b 2mo ago

>>Value for who? Value as determined by who? Value for us, real people who have needs. We decide what we want to buy and not some apparatchik on their pedestal. >>Rivers here are drying out. Glaciers are melting. Forests are burning. As if this never happened before capitalism?

vrganj 2mo ago
Who is "us"? Because in capitalism, only people with capital get to decide what has value. The values of the poor are not reflected. The values of the indigenous are not reflected. The values of the non-capitalist are not reflected. The value of the unborn is not reflected. The value of nature is not reflected. The glacier doesn't participate in the market and neither does the river. Are they without value? > As if this never happened before capitalism? That's correct. Look at the graph I posted above, you'll notice that things weren't always this hot. Before capitalism they sure weren't.
- nec4b 2mo ago
  No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most, because the capitalist first and foremost need to provide value to us. I'm not sure what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? Isn't it evident people assign great value to natural resources. The world is a bit older then 120 years in your graph. There were a lot of natural disasters that wiped quite a lot of living beings from the planet.
  - vrganj 2mo ago
    > No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most That is just straight up not true. The tribal elder in the Amazon, who's forest capitalists are burning down never got asked how he defines value. The child not yet born was never asked if it's atmosphere should be heated up for data centers. Neither was the fish in the river or the river itself for that matter. > what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? I'm not sure what's unclear. The glacier melts as a result of somebody who's not the glacier deciding "value" on a market. In reality, the market doesn't decide value. Value is not price. The market decides power structures and violence distribution. The glacier has a value completely separate from the market, and not derived from it. > There were a lot of natural disasters Why are we pivoting to natural disasters now?
    - nec4b 2mo ago
      How exactly can you ask an unborn child, a river or a glacier what it wants? Did the Yugoslav dictator ask Kosovars what they want before violently oppressing them?
      - vrganj 2mo ago
        That is precisely the point - you can't! I'm glad we got to this shared understanding in the end. So I'd appreciate if we stopped pretending the market did, when it fails to account for anything that's not somebody with money. How could it possibly assign "value" that way?