this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
62 points (98.4% liked)
GenZedong
4287 readers
94 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
As a thought:
We use money as a convenient way to describe the value of someone's labour. But, it removes all context. It's kind of like having a multi variable equation to describe the economic value someone has, and either using approximations, derivatives, or substitutions, to simplify the equation into a single variable.
Then, we use markets to do the same thing with the needs of people. It's a simplified representation of what the real quantifiable needs of people and society are.
It's sort of like instead of asking everyone what they need and want, prioritizing the needs, and figuring out how much labour time is required to meet those needs, then figuring out how much labour time is required to meet the wants. We decided it is easier(true)/better to assume that each person will only choose to trade the amount of labour time they are willing to commit to trading for their needs/wants.
If someone in this situation is able to have more money than their labour value (theft, inheritance, etc.), they are disconnected from the effort required to meet their needs/wants. Thus, they have the money required to meet their needs, plus extra that is unearned, and an imbalance of power under this arrangement. It becomes possible to offer more for resources that are either scarce, or close enough to being scarce, thus driving up the price without any additional labour from that individual.
I bet it is possible to invent a new metric (besides money, but maybe unnecessary) and/or a new distribution tool (instead of the "market") that prioritizes needs and wants more than simply money/capital.
I'll call this work:
Crapital volume 1
Keep in mind this is a much smaller scale than any bigger society but there are some Belgian communes for example that use time as a metric. For example: I work x amount of time doing stuff for you, like working in your garden, and you then owe me x amount of time to do something for me. Basically everyone trades their time to meet the needs of the commune.
That sounds nice and all, but the relationship between time and labour is not linear. So one might put in more effort than another in the same amount of time. Therefore, there are some limitations in using time as such a metric.
This would indicate we must find the mean of labor data time inputted...