Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q1867: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
← Older editNewer edit →
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
16,446 edits
Societies forget workers are connected
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
16,446 edits
Exchange-value is not inside diamond / dragon process
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>

Revision as of 06:08, 30 July 2026

Main entry

  1. Capital volume I (Marx 1863/1867)

The commodity

  1. 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) [1] / commodity fetishism (generic) / abstraction of human labor (generic) / universality of commodity form (generic) [2] -> 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 pronounced easier. 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

  2. Value is not inside diamond

    / Exchange-value is not inside diamond / No chemist has discovered exchange-value inside pearl or diamond (Marx) [3] / 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.

Related

  1. Capital volume II (Marx 1863/1893)
  2. Capital volume III (Marx 1863/1894)
  3. Capital volume IV (Marx 1863/1963)
  4. Theories of surplus value -> sometimes separated from Capital vol IV, sometimes grouped into it
  5. (further divisions of volume IV?)
  6. (further divisions of volume IV?)
  7. dragon process / (9k) -> 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 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.

Ideologies or fields

  1. pronounced M.N. / early Marxism
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q1867&oldid=44646"