Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q1867 - Revision history

Reversedragon: If labor is the source of value comparisons, how does it contain value?

2026-08-13T10:26:27Z

If labor is the source of value comparisons, how does it contain value?

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 13 August 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/ML\|Q=18,67\|Q2=1867}}{{book\|Capital}} volume I (Marx 1863/1867)		{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/MN\|Q=18,67\|Q2=1867}}{{book\|Capital}} volume I (Marx 1863/1867)

	{{li\|I=Z1/ML\|Q=18,67\|Q2=1867}}{{book\|Capital}} volume I -> the Wavebuilder combinations on this are going to be {{em\|crazy}}.		{{li\|I=Z1/MN\|Q=18,67\|Q2=1867}}{{book\|Capital}} volume I -> the Wavebuilder combinations on this are going to be {{em\|crazy}}.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 12:		Line 12:
	<ol class="hue clean field_ML">		<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,16\|Q2=2816\|h4= Societies forget workers are connected }} / Societies forget the relationship of workers to workers (workers to corporation; workers to proletarian class) because society is covered in relationships from corporations to corporations (commodity to commodity, product to product; owner to owner; owner to bourgeois class) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] / commodity fetishism (generic) / abstraction of human labor (generic) / universality of commodity form (generic) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] -> <s>which word is this again? early Marxism makes a lot of sense but sometimes I get lost in exactly what term I'm talking about. I'm glad I made a system where concepts can be entire propositions because that's so much {{TTS\|easier\|easier.}}</s> I think this proposition is commodity fetishism. it's about the idea that products sell for something because 'that's what the product is' and not because workers exist or even because individual virtuosos exist. I just made it really obvious by associating products with capitalists who are going to take credit for planning them or at least put out a lot of hype about them		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MN\|Q=28,16\|Q2=2816\|h4= Societies forget workers are connected }} / Societies forget the relationship of workers to workers (workers to corporation; workers to proletarian class) because society is covered in relationships from corporations to corporations (commodity to commodity, product to product; owner to owner; owner to bourgeois class) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] / commodity fetishism (generic) / abstraction of human labor (generic) / universality of commodity form (generic) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] -> <s>which word is this again? early Marxism makes a lot of sense but sometimes I get lost in exactly what term I'm talking about. I'm glad I made a system where concepts can be entire propositions because that's so much {{TTS\|easier\|easier.}}</s> I think this proposition is commodity fetishism. it's about the idea that products sell for something because 'that's what the product is' and not because workers exist or even because individual virtuosos exist. I just made it really obvious by associating products with capitalists who are going to take credit for planning them or at least put out a lot of hype about them

	{{li\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618\|h4= God created dragon hoards }} / Gold and silver are {{em\|not}} tokens of rare and exclusive relationships, and are supernaturally or metaphysically valuable; this is not to state that any particular supernatural cause ("God", etc.) is the root of the metaphysical Ideal of wealth, but this is to state that the metaphysical Ideal of wealth is baked into physical objects like pearls and diamonds / To the monetary system, gold and silver ... were natural objects with strange social properties (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm] / ({{9k\|RD/Q28,87}}) -> I think you see this proposition a lot in fantasy stories. hence the reference to fantasy creatures. the embarrassing thing is when you realize that real medieval people probably thought this (see: alchemists defining gold and its 'perfection' through metaphysical qualities) and even up to about 1600, really even today, people still think this on some level.<br/>		{{li\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618\|h4= God created dragon hoards }} / Gold and silver are {{em\|not}} tokens of rare and exclusive relationships, and are supernaturally or metaphysically valuable; this is not to state that any particular supernatural cause ("God", etc.) is the root of the metaphysical Ideal of wealth, but this is to state that the metaphysical Ideal of wealth is baked into physical objects like pearls and diamonds / To the monetary system, gold and silver ... were natural objects with strange social properties (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm] / ({{9k\|RD/Q28,87}}) -> I think you see this proposition a lot in fantasy stories. hence the reference to fantasy creatures. the embarrassing thing is when you realize that real medieval people probably thought this (see: alchemists defining gold and its 'perfection' through metaphysical qualities) and even up to about 1600, really even today, people still think this on some level.<br/>
	gosh this proposition is even in Steven Universe isn't it? because the Gems have inherent ranks that are kind of metaphysical in nature, this stone always creates a Gem of this rank, even when you abolish the utter tyranny of the Gem planet in mysterious ways, they are still really defined by their inherent qualities {{em\|qualitatively}}. ...		gosh this proposition is even in Steven Universe isn't it? because the Gems have inherent ranks that are kind of metaphysical in nature, this stone always creates a Gem of this rank, even when you abolish the utter tyranny of the Gem planet in mysterious ways, they are still really defined by their inherent qualities {{em\|qualitatively}}. ...

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|h4= Value is not inside diamond }} / Exchange-value is not inside diamond / No chemist has discovered exchange-value inside pearl or diamond (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm] / Economists like S. Bailey write that for people to have "riches" items must have value inside them related to exchange that becomes that wealth; this is not correct because exchange-value cannot be inside objects before they are exchanged, and if they are not being exchanged they must become "riches" by a separate use-value -> amazing. the suggestion that value is actually inside diamond is so funny when you put into perspective why it's not.		{{li\|I=S2/MN\|Q=618\|h4= Value is not inside diamond }} / Exchange-value is not inside diamond / No chemist has discovered exchange-value inside pearl or diamond (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm] / Economists like S. Bailey write that for people to have "riches" items must have value inside them related to exchange that becomes that wealth; this is not correct because exchange-value cannot be inside objects before they are exchanged, and if they are not being exchanged they must become "riches" by a separate use-value -> amazing. the suggestion that value is actually inside diamond is so funny when you put into perspective why it's not.

			</li></ol>

			== Miscellaneous: profit ==
			<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MN\|Q=618\|Q=618}}Why does profit exist? / How does profit exist? / What is the origin of profit? [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/28/varo-f28.html] / If all commodities are exchanged based on equivalent amounts of labor, then how do capitalists end up with more labor-units than they spent on materials and workers? (sense)

			{{li\|I=S2/MN\|Q=618\|Q=618}}If labor is the source of value comparisons, how does it contain value? / If labor is the source of value through creating the "labor-unit", then how is labor paid in labor-units before labor-units really exist, or labor-units converted to monetary value before labor-units exist if those labor-units determine the value of money? [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/28/varo-f28.html]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: combination: surplus value

2026-08-12T12:10:09Z

combination: surplus value

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:10, 12 August 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

	<li ~~data-qid~~="18,67~~" value~~="1867~~" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z"><cite>~~Capital~~</cite>~~ volume I (Marx 1863/1867)		{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/ML\|Q=18,67\|Q2=1867}}{{book\|Capital}} volume I (Marx 1863/1867)

	~~<!--~~ {{li~~\|start=y~~\|I=S1/Fy\|Q=38,45\|Q2=~~3845~~}}~~[[E:Q38,45\|superstructural fantasy world]] / (~~{{9k\|~~RD/Q38,45~~}}) -> ~~very prominent motif in~~ {{~~game~~\|~~Undertale~~}} ~~and {{game\|Deltarune}} that quietly sneaks into these analyses in various ways~~. ~~the outside world, the barrier. the videogame, the commentary. the videogame, the cynicism. the videogame, the weird creepypasta distortion. -->~~		{{li\|I=Z1/ML\|Q=18,67\|Q2=1867}}{{book\|Capital}} volume I -> the Wavebuilder combinations on this are going to be {{em\|crazy}}.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 33:		Line 33:

	{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=\|Q=28,81\|Q2=2881}}dragon process / ({{9k\|RD/Q28,87}}) -> a hypothesized process for how wealth is created. every wealth object is created from labor, even particular units of gold that come out of a mine, but the second step to creating wealth is to ensure that getting a particular thing {{em\|through}} labor is difficult so it is not easily reproduced. this may happen through concentrating only the most skilled workers in a corporation, attempting to hide trade secrets, or owning diamond mines but blocking them off. at a certain point, not doing labor becomes more valuable than doing it if you can manage to prevent anybody else from doing it either. thus, a particular category of "treasures", "collectibles", or "rank goods" is created. the dragon process is the totality of ways that rank goods are generated and concentrated in one specific place, expressed in its simplest and most generic form; the dragon process generates a hoard of treasures, which can also sometimes have the paradoxical quality of only existing because they are artificially created and not because they are naturally rare.		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=\|Q=28,81\|Q2=2881}}dragon process / ({{9k\|RD/Q28,87}}) -> a hypothesized process for how wealth is created. every wealth object is created from labor, even particular units of gold that come out of a mine, but the second step to creating wealth is to ensure that getting a particular thing {{em\|through}} labor is difficult so it is not easily reproduced. this may happen through concentrating only the most skilled workers in a corporation, attempting to hide trade secrets, or owning diamond mines but blocking them off. at a certain point, not doing labor becomes more valuable than doing it if you can manage to prevent anybody else from doing it either. thus, a particular category of "treasures", "collectibles", or "rank goods" is created. the dragon process is the totality of ways that rank goods are generated and concentrated in one specific place, expressed in its simplest and most generic form; the dragon process generates a hoard of treasures, which can also sometimes have the paradoxical quality of only existing because they are artificially created and not because they are naturally rare.

			{{li\|I=S1/Fy\|Q=38,45\|Q2=3845}}[[E:Q38,45\|superstructural fantasy world]] / ({{9k\|RD/Q38,45}}) -> fictional motif that weirdly reflects capitalism.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 41:		Line 43:
	\|I=S1/MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|MN\|M.N.}} / early Marxism		\|I=S1/MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|MN\|M.N.}} / early Marxism
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

			== Wavebuilder combinations ==
			<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three field_ML">

			{{WaveBuild\| {{E:Q618/ML\|labor commodity}} \| {{E:Q618/ML\|wages}} \| {{E:Q618/LR\|surplus value}} }} <!-- en: Along With, Produces ?? ?? -->

			{{WaveBuild\| {{E:Q618/ML\|labor commodity}} \| {{E:Q618/LR\|minimum wage}} \| {{E:Q618/LR\|surplus value}} }} <!-- en: Along With, Produces ?? ?? -->

			{{WaveBuild\| {{E:Q618/LR\|surplus value}} \| {{E:Q618/LR\|capitalist}} \| {{E:Q618/LR\|profit}} }} <!-- en: Along With, Produces ?? ?? -->

			</dl>

	<!--		<!--

Reversedragon: God created dragon hoards

2026-07-30T06:27:09Z

God created dragon hoards

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:27, 30 July 2026
Line 13:		Line 13:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,16\|Q2=2816\|h4= Societies forget workers are connected }} / Societies forget the relationship of workers to workers (workers to corporation; workers to proletarian class) because society is covered in relationships from corporations to corporations (commodity to commodity, product to product; owner to owner; owner to bourgeois class) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] / commodity fetishism (generic) / abstraction of human labor (generic) / universality of commodity form (generic) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] -> <s>which word is this again? early Marxism makes a lot of sense but sometimes I get lost in exactly what term I'm talking about. I'm glad I made a system where concepts can be entire propositions because that's so much {{TTS\|easier\|easier.}}</s> I think this proposition is commodity fetishism. it's about the idea that products sell for something because 'that's what the product is' and not because workers exist or even because individual virtuosos exist. I just made it really obvious by associating products with capitalists who are going to take credit for planning them or at least put out a lot of hype about them		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,16\|Q2=2816\|h4= Societies forget workers are connected }} / Societies forget the relationship of workers to workers (workers to corporation; workers to proletarian class) because society is covered in relationships from corporations to corporations (commodity to commodity, product to product; owner to owner; owner to bourgeois class) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] / commodity fetishism (generic) / abstraction of human labor (generic) / universality of commodity form (generic) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] -> <s>which word is this again? early Marxism makes a lot of sense but sometimes I get lost in exactly what term I'm talking about. I'm glad I made a system where concepts can be entire propositions because that's so much {{TTS\|easier\|easier.}}</s> I think this proposition is commodity fetishism. it's about the idea that products sell for something because 'that's what the product is' and not because workers exist or even because individual virtuosos exist. I just made it really obvious by associating products with capitalists who are going to take credit for planning them or at least put out a lot of hype about them

			{{li\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618\|h4= God created dragon hoards }} / Gold and silver are {{em\|not}} tokens of rare and exclusive relationships, and are supernaturally or metaphysically valuable; this is not to state that any particular supernatural cause ("God", etc.) is the root of the metaphysical Ideal of wealth, but this is to state that the metaphysical Ideal of wealth is baked into physical objects like pearls and diamonds / To the monetary system, gold and silver ... were natural objects with strange social properties (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm] / ({{9k\|RD/Q28,87}}) -> I think you see this proposition a lot in fantasy stories. hence the reference to fantasy creatures. the embarrassing thing is when you realize that real medieval people probably thought this (see: alchemists defining gold and its 'perfection' through metaphysical qualities) and even up to about 1600, really even today, people still think this on some level.<br/>
			gosh this proposition is even in Steven Universe isn't it? because the Gems have inherent ranks that are kind of metaphysical in nature, this stone always creates a Gem of this rank, even when you abolish the utter tyranny of the Gem planet in mysterious ways, they are still really defined by their inherent qualities {{em\|qualitatively}}. ...

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|h4= Value is not inside diamond }} / Exchange-value is not inside diamond / No chemist has discovered exchange-value inside pearl or diamond (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm] / Economists like S. Bailey write that for people to have "riches" items must have value inside them related to exchange that becomes that wealth; this is not correct because exchange-value cannot be inside objects before they are exchanged, and if they are not being exchanged they must become "riches" by a separate use-value -> amazing. the suggestion that value is actually inside diamond is so funny when you put into perspective why it's not.		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|h4= Value is not inside diamond }} / Exchange-value is not inside diamond / No chemist has discovered exchange-value inside pearl or diamond (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm] / Economists like S. Bailey write that for people to have "riches" items must have value inside them related to exchange that becomes that wealth; this is not correct because exchange-value cannot be inside objects before they are exchanged, and if they are not being exchanged they must become "riches" by a separate use-value -> amazing. the suggestion that value is actually inside diamond is so funny when you put into perspective why it's not.

Reversedragon: Exchange-value is not inside diamond / dragon process

2026-07-30T06:08:27Z

Exchange-value is not inside diamond / dragon process

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:08, 30 July 2026
Line 13:		Line 13:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,16\|Q2=2816\|h4= Societies forget workers are connected }} / Societies forget the relationship of workers to workers (workers to corporation; workers to proletarian class) because society is covered in relationships from corporations to corporations (commodity to commodity, product to product; owner to owner; owner to bourgeois class) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] / commodity fetishism (generic) / abstraction of human labor (generic) / universality of commodity form (generic) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] -> <s>which word is this again? early Marxism makes a lot of sense but sometimes I get lost in exactly what term I'm talking about. I'm glad I made a system where concepts can be entire propositions because that's so much {{TTS\|easier\|easier.}}</s> I think this proposition is commodity fetishism. it's about the idea that products sell for something because 'that's what the product is' and not because workers exist or even because individual virtuosos exist. I just made it really obvious by associating products with capitalists who are going to take credit for planning them or at least put out a lot of hype about them		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,16\|Q2=2816\|h4= Societies forget workers are connected }} / Societies forget the relationship of workers to workers (workers to corporation; workers to proletarian class) because society is covered in relationships from corporations to corporations (commodity to commodity, product to product; owner to owner; owner to bourgeois class) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] / commodity fetishism (generic) / abstraction of human labor (generic) / universality of commodity form (generic) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] -> <s>which word is this again? early Marxism makes a lot of sense but sometimes I get lost in exactly what term I'm talking about. I'm glad I made a system where concepts can be entire propositions because that's so much {{TTS\|easier\|easier.}}</s> I think this proposition is commodity fetishism. it's about the idea that products sell for something because 'that's what the product is' and not because workers exist or even because individual virtuosos exist. I just made it really obvious by associating products with capitalists who are going to take credit for planning them or at least put out a lot of hype about them

			{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|h4= Value is not inside diamond }} / Exchange-value is not inside diamond / No chemist has discovered exchange-value inside pearl or diamond (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm] / Economists like S. Bailey write that for people to have "riches" items must have value inside them related to exchange that becomes that wealth; this is not correct because exchange-value cannot be inside objects before they are exchanged, and if they are not being exchanged they must become "riches" by a separate use-value -> amazing. the suggestion that value is actually inside diamond is so funny when you put into perspective why it's not.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 26:		Line 28:
	</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,72" value="1872" data-dimension="S0">(further divisions of volume IV?)		</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,72" value="1872" data-dimension="S0">(further divisions of volume IV?)
	</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,73" value="1873" data-dimension="S0">(further divisions of volume IV?)		</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,73" value="1873" data-dimension="S0">(further divisions of volume IV?)

			{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=\|Q=28,81\|Q2=2881}}dragon process / ({{9k\|RD/Q28,87}}) -> a hypothesized process for how wealth is created. every wealth object is created from labor, even particular units of gold that come out of a mine, but the second step to creating wealth is to ensure that getting a particular thing {{em\|through}} labor is difficult so it is not easily reproduced. this may happen through concentrating only the most skilled workers in a corporation, attempting to hide trade secrets, or owning diamond mines but blocking them off. at a certain point, not doing labor becomes more valuable than doing it if you can manage to prevent anybody else from doing it either. thus, a particular category of "treasures", "collectibles", or "rank goods" is created. the dragon process is the totality of ways that rank goods are generated and concentrated in one specific place, expressed in its simplest and most generic form; the dragon process generates a hoard of treasures, which can also sometimes have the paradoxical quality of only existing because they are artificially created and not because they are naturally rare.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Societies forget workers are connected

2026-07-28T10:30:12Z

Societies forget workers are connected

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:30, 28 July 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	== The commodity ==		== The commodity ==
	<ol class="hue clean field_ML">		<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,16\|Q2=2816\|h4= Societies forget workers are connected }} / Societies forget the relationship of workers to workers (workers to corporation; workers to proletarian class) because society is covered in relationships from corporations to corporations (commodity to commodity, product to product; owner to owner; owner to bourgeois class) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] / commodity fetishism (generic) / abstraction of human labor (generic) / universality of commodity form (generic) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] -> <s>which word is this again? early Marxism makes a lot of sense but sometimes I get lost in exactly what term I'm talking about. I'm glad I made a system where concepts can be entire propositions because that's so much {{TTS\|easier\|easier.}}</s> I think this proposition is commodity fetishism. it's about the idea that products sell for something because 'that's what the product is' and not because workers exist or even because individual virtuosos exist. I just made it really obvious by associating products with capitalists who are going to take credit for planning them or at least put out a lot of hype about them

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q65,63

2026-07-28T10:11:17Z

copy markup from Q65,63

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Capital volume 1|User=RD|E=Q1867|NoContents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

<li data-qid="18,67" value="1867" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Capital</cite> volume I (Marx 1863/1867)



</li></ol>

== The commodity ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML">
</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean field_ML">


</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,68" value="1868" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Capital</cite> volume II (Marx 1863/1893)
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,69" value="1869" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Capital</cite> volume III (Marx 1863/1894)
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,70" value="1870" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Capital</cite> volume IV (Marx 1863/[https://marxistleninists.org/M&E/index.htm 1963])
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,71" value="1871" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Theories of surplus value</cite> -> sometimes separated from Capital vol IV, sometimes grouped into it
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,72" value="1872" data-dimension="S0">(further divisions of volume IV?)
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,73" value="1873" data-dimension="S0">(further divisions of volume IV?)

</li></ol>

== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean terse field_ML">
{{li|start=y
|I=S1/MN|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|MN|M.N.}} / early Marxism
</li></ol>



[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:27, 30 July 2026
Line 13:		Line 13:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,16\|Q2=2816\|h4= Societies forget workers are connected }} / Societies forget the relationship of workers to workers (workers to corporation; workers to proletarian class) because society is covered in relationships from corporations to corporations (commodity to commodity, product to product; owner to owner; owner to bourgeois class) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] / commodity fetishism (generic) / abstraction of human labor (generic) / universality of commodity form (generic) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] -> <s>which word is this again? early Marxism makes a lot of sense but sometimes I get lost in exactly what term I'm talking about. I'm glad I made a system where concepts can be entire propositions because that's so much {{TTS\|easier\|easier.}}</s> I think this proposition is commodity fetishism. it's about the idea that products sell for something because 'that's what the product is' and not because workers exist or even because individual virtuosos exist. I just made it really obvious by associating products with capitalists who are going to take credit for planning them or at least put out a lot of hype about them		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,16\|Q2=2816\|h4= Societies forget workers are connected }} / Societies forget the relationship of workers to workers (workers to corporation; workers to proletarian class) because society is covered in relationships from corporations to corporations (commodity to commodity, product to product; owner to owner; owner to bourgeois class) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] / commodity fetishism (generic) / abstraction of human labor (generic) / universality of commodity form (generic) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm] -> <s>which word is this again? early Marxism makes a lot of sense but sometimes I get lost in exactly what term I'm talking about. I'm glad I made a system where concepts can be entire propositions because that's so much {{TTS\|easier\|easier.}}</s> I think this proposition is commodity fetishism. it's about the idea that products sell for something because 'that's what the product is' and not because workers exist or even because individual virtuosos exist. I just made it really obvious by associating products with capitalists who are going to take credit for planning them or at least put out a lot of hype about them

			{{li\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618\|h4= God created dragon hoards }} / Gold and silver are {{em\|not}} tokens of rare and exclusive relationships, and are supernaturally or metaphysically valuable; this is not to state that any particular supernatural cause ("God", etc.) is the root of the metaphysical Ideal of wealth, but this is to state that the metaphysical Ideal of wealth is baked into physical objects like pearls and diamonds / To the monetary system, gold and silver ... were natural objects with strange social properties (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm] / ({{9k\|RD/Q28,87}}) -> I think you see this proposition a lot in fantasy stories. hence the reference to fantasy creatures. the embarrassing thing is when you realize that real medieval people probably thought this (see: alchemists defining gold and its 'perfection' through metaphysical qualities) and even up to about 1600, really even today, people still think this on some level.<br/>
			gosh this proposition is even in Steven Universe isn't it? because the Gems have inherent ranks that are kind of metaphysical in nature, this stone always creates a Gem of this rank, even when you abolish the utter tyranny of the Gem planet in mysterious ways, they are still really defined by their inherent qualities {{em\|qualitatively}}. ...

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|h4= Value is not inside diamond }} / Exchange-value is not inside diamond / No chemist has discovered exchange-value inside pearl or diamond (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm] / Economists like S. Bailey write that for people to have "riches" items must have value inside them related to exchange that becomes that wealth; this is not correct because exchange-value cannot be inside objects before they are exchanged, and if they are not being exchanged they must become "riches" by a separate use-value -> amazing. the suggestion that value is actually inside diamond is so funny when you put into perspective why it's not.		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|h4= Value is not inside diamond }} / Exchange-value is not inside diamond / No chemist has discovered exchange-value inside pearl or diamond (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm] / Economists like S. Bailey write that for people to have "riches" items must have value inside them related to exchange that becomes that wealth; this is not correct because exchange-value cannot be inside objects before they are exchanged, and if they are not being exchanged they must become "riches" by a separate use-value -> amazing. the suggestion that value is actually inside diamond is so funny when you put into perspective why it's not.