blackbread

Can I push back on the idea that the US is the most important country to have a socialist revolution in? I'd argue it's more important to have socialist revolutions where the global proletariat are. Where is that; Where do you find slave and semi-slavery conditions forced up hundreds of millions of women and children? Places that you don't hear about in the news (e.g. large parts of Africa, parts of Asia, etc). These are the workers that run the global economy and generate the profits.

By comparison, many white Westerners are highly overpaid compared to the work they contribute. This is why capital can so easily import foreign workers at a fraction of the cost. The US is already busy changing. It's got a cultural war between one faction that wants to rebuild the white settler nation (e.g. by limiting access to birth control, importing white "refugees", creating "trad"-wives, etc) and another that wants to reduce the privileged white sub-nation and build an alternative "privileged" class (special males, in specially male-gendered industries that pay well but contribute little to society -- cars, weapons, computers) and that can police a new underclass (women and children, worldwide, working in low pay situations in socially-vital but very under-payed jobs designated for them). The capitalist class is happy to let these two sides duke it out, but either way, I think the US and its allies are busy, occupied with trends that will eventually make them more fertile ground for revolution.

I also think it's worth considering that if you want to organize and build alliances you'll have to show up for friends and their causes (by this I mean good causes, and I'll assume you're weighed the benefits vs risks) -- being an accelerationist is going to often position you against these allies. I'd worry that being an accelerationist combined with the strategy you've proposed is going to look very much like being a regular capitalist (at least until the very last moment). I'm reminded of "effective-altruism", which I don't believe has a good track record of successes.

This is good advice.

My worry is that this hydroponics setup probably costs a lot and requires continual upkeep and volunteer labor. Thinking about it, I guess when I say "remains communist" I mean that there exists a community body that is responsible for it, plans for its upkeep (& replacement cost & expansion, etc) and calls forth the volunteer labor to run it. I fear without that ethic the project could devolve into a plain old business.

I don't want to be an individual who goes around soliciting funds and volunteers for a social project, only to have it end up as a rug-pull-transition to becoming a private business.

I just noticed that table of contents for the Reitter translation is very different from the Moore & Aveling version. The Ben Fowkes translation seems to be the same table of contents as Moore & Aveling's version.

For example, Chapter 10 (in Moore & Aveling) is "The Working Day". In Reitter, that's chapter 8 (so I'm way ahead... having finished Reitter's Chapter 10, which is equivalent to Moore & Aveling's chapter 12... I was wondering why I didn't see any subsections in my chapter 10.)

I'll try to translate the Moore/Aveling chapters to the equivalent Reitter chapters as soon as new discussion threads open, but something to be aware of in the future.

(Looking again, the difference seem to be that Moore & Aveling's chapters 4, 5 and 6 are combined into a single Chapter 4 (with subsections) in Reitters. So after Chapter 6 in Moore & Aveling, the equivalent Reitter's chapter is two less). This rule holds true up to Moore & Aveling's chapter 25 ("The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation")

after which Moore & Aveling's chapters 26 to 33 are conmpressed into two chapters with many subsections in Reitter's.

These chapters (especially 8) exposing the actual behaviors of the capitalist class (e.g. brutal overworking by extending the workday, trying to redefine 10 years old as an adult, etc).

I found the discussion about "the last hour" very interesting. The idea is that the capitalist is, in some sense, paid last -- so if you ever gave the workers even an hour off then it's all coming directly from the "poor" capitalists pocket book. And thus the morality that any kind of break or holiday is cheating a capitalist out of their god-given right to profit. The idea dovetails nicely into the reality: capitalists want their dead capital to always be being rejuvenated (i.e. valorized) by the living labour, at all times and in ever greater quantities. And it's for this reason that Marx called them vampires. I think the description is exceedingly apt, whereas before I thought it was poetic.

The other (more worrying) thought of mine -- Marx shows how capital simple consumes humans. Especially when pennyless foreign workers are lined up to get the job, and then also with widespread child labour. I wonder if the west will return to widespread child labour as it becomes more openly racist and facist in response to its waning imperialism. I don't see any reasons why it wouldn't.

As I read the first part of this chapter (about gold and formation of money) I was thinking in my head about how fiat currency is basically not different than debased gold. The later part of the chapter talked about how money becomes a credit system (which leads to potential boom and bust systems). Anyway, I'm feeling that after reading capital, you can probably just toss Modern Monetary theory into the garbage (I noticed others said similar things reading chapter 2).

I found the idea that things that don't have "value" (because they're not produced by labour -- like titles, or land) can acquire prices to be very intriguing (and unexpected). The history of "money names" (e.g. pound sterling [silver]) becoming totally divorced from their modern quantities due to debasement.

I had to reread what he said about money serving too roles -- measure of price and standard of value. Read that over half a dozen times, but it makes sense to me now. I paid attention when Marx said that the "use-value" of gold (as money) becomes equal to it's exchange value (gold can of course, be used for other things, but one thing it is used for, is exchange). This is a dialectical unity.

Just a whole lot in this chapter that was interesting. For example, that the quantity of gold in circulation would be tied to the speed of transactions and the amount of commodities

and not the reverse (e.g. gold being added won't increase the amount of commodities nor speed up transactions).

It's helpful reading others notes, as it helps me focus in on things I may have missed.

I found chapter 2 harder than chapter 1 (even though it's much shorter) because the focus seems more diffuse. It starts by looking at commodity owners, before going into the money commodity.

I found the part about commodity owners especially interesting. The presence of commodities shapes human behavior:

• Humans with commodities view other humans as commodities. (So my take: a commodity owner doesn't see charity cases, doesn't see immorality; They just see somebody to trade with. That at least is what the exchange process encourages and is different from more direct collaboration or trade where you probably care much more about such details).
• When you have commodity owners, they effectively "vouch" for each others ownership in the trade; Regardless of what the law says. So the idea of commodity ownership is more fundamental than human laws and is "enforced" by mutual recognition between commodity owners.
• Commodities want to be exchanged; This is an anthropomorphism, but the idea is if someone is calling something a commodity, it's because they don't want it. So, in a way, commodity owners become chaperones for their commodities.

Marx also mentioned a "rebound effect" where external commodities (for example a nation trading for gas) creates an internal commodities market as people become used to the idea of the externally provided commodity being part of their local economy. I imagine it's true, but wonder if it's as consistent as some of his other statements. A planned economy can probably avoid this -- and small economies probably can avoid this behavior also.

Got through with the Reitter translation... let me give a general overview so people can let me know if this translation is wildly different or has missed something vital.

Marx goes through a series of equations representing trade. In Reitter it's linen and coats. 1 coat = 20 yards linen (for example). Later, this generalizes to more commodities 1 coat = 20 yards linen or 1 coat = 40 loaves bread or 1 coat = xyz. One for each commodity. Finally it generalizes to a form 1 coat = {20 yards linen, 40 loaves bread, ...}. These equations are meant to represent the historical development of the commodity. The first represents a simple sort of barter, the second a more commodity based society, and the third the introduction of a money commodity.

In explaining this, Marx makes it clear that the equating of commodities is really the equating of abstract labor. And an interesting duality: the "exchange value" of something is expressed in terms of the "use value" of something else! I don't believe Marx said that exchange and use values are dialectically opposed.

So far so good anyway. Felt pretty comfortable in Reitter translation -- I avoided all the historic footnotes which just confused me :-/

Please add me to the notifications list (I'll be trying the Reitter version).

I assume from your phrasing you mean to say that "some industrialists will prefer human labour over cheaper machines". (But you could instead have meant to say that "in society, there will always be a role for human labour").

I think this proposition is false (in the long run) due to the the profit-maximization logic of capitalism. Even if some industrialists prefer human labour, in the long run they'd eventually be out-competed by those that didn't. But yes, machines cost a lot upfront which could delay the switchover (possibly even beyond the sunset of the industry!).

I think the "Rate of profit falls" theory doesn't matter. Assume it's true: machines lower the rate of profit. But, capitalists can't (as a group) decide not to use machines. Without control of private assets (e.g. capital) the capitalists cease to be, and become a purely rentier class again. It would no longer be capitalism but feudalism. I don't believe capitalists have the power (or desire) to cause such a transition.

I've been doing this with rclone. https://github.com/rclone/rclone

I manually run it to sync my important files (which I modify on my Desktop) up to Google Drive (which serves as a web accessible backup).

pigginz has a valid viewpoint. Most people I've given this advice to respond in similar ways. I think it comes down to two fundamental conflicts, the first is about "Being true to yourself" vs doing otherwise.

Did you see the Barbie movie? There is this great quote:

"You're not your girlfriend. You're not your house, you're not your mink. [Ken] Beach? [Barbie] Nope. You're not even beach. Maybe all the things that you thought made you you aren't really you"

The idea is that "you are you", and it's more fundamental than superficial things like your clothes, body, job, conversational skills, etc. But if this is true, the idea cuts both ways: if "you" are not any of these things then you may change any of these things and still be true to yourself (because these things are not you!). Sort of absurd. "You" in some sense includes your capabilities, relationships (with people and property), your job, fashion sense, your family, your history, etc. But in a more immediate sense, I think "you" must certainly include your actions. Ken in that movie was an asshole because he acted like one.

So "being true to yourself" vs not is a factor whenever you change your actions. You choose to go to the gym. You choose to talk to strangers . You choose to leave the house. Perhaps you feel that making these choices will have violated your integrity, but I feel that's hard to sustain which will become clearer when we look at the second fundamental conflict: Is it immoral to choose to act this way?

I would posit that you choose to do these things because you desire a certain outcome. That in itself isn't immoral, because that's why we're all communists. We act certain ways (e.g. by reading books, posting, organizing) because we hope to achieve a certain outcome (a better society). But some actions are certainly immoral: but it depends on both the action and the motivation behind it. For example if you become a life guard because you want to save people, that's moral. If you become a life guard because you intend to let a select few hated enemies drown, that's immoral.

It's immoral to lie and/or pretend to be something you are not, but it's moral to present yourself as well you can, as far and wide as you can, because you want to attract a partner. But morality requires you to act with honesty, consideration and care towards others.

It's not a meme. It works. Especially for men in their 20's and 30's.

It's kind of like low cost insurance. People have a natural tendency to eat a similar calorie amount everyday. Society talks about mesomorphs, endomorphs, ectomorphs, but as far as I can tell there is no science backing this (instead these differences arise from the different daily calorie amounts). So GOMAD basically ensures a beginning weight trainer is getting enough healthy calories for muscle growth. It combats the "hard-gainer" phenomenon.