No. But a very soft no because I think I’d like being a woman just as well but pretty sure It’s not reflective of gender that I present or feel? But no accounting at the moment should count me as gender diverse lol

I guess that makes sense! Cool and thanks

So you know the term in topology? Is this a specific example of a wider phenomenon?

You know how you can fold/bend a rubber band into like 3 “circles” and it stays stable without having any twists in it? What is this phenomenon in topology called? And more importantly, is it possible to do that with 5 loops instead of 3?

I learned who he was, read 1 book, read another book that was the same book but only slightly increased racist jokes, and then gave up. Glad I dropped him. Though some of his jokes were actually funny but more absurdist that useful dialectics or so. Pretty sure he just stole those jokes

I agree with what was said that this is just a poor choice of words for speaking about material conditions and seeing the pattern almost passively of Western benefit from imperialism. But I’d encourage you to just email or DM Roderic about this critique of the phrasing. I can almost guarantee he’d change it to improve it or add context/a footnote

Philosophy absolutely has the ability to examine and propose better definitions when definitions (like the ones you linked) do not capture the phenomenon. Losurdo read more books than you’ve seen by liberals in order to write his “Liberalism” book. He understood the phenomenon deeper and further than its dictionary use.

How do you capture such a thing in your world view? Because he found flaws in definitions and worked deeper, he just did nothing because it wasnt the Oxford definition?

Liberalism is associated with those things because it allowed them to happen to avoid a negative effect to property rights (revolution, riots) once more radical people pushed for them. Liberalism is reactionary and regressive, but some liberals are easier to convince of specific rights extensions than others. You’ve been lied to a lot if you think liberals did these things

As someone in systems engineering, almost all jobs are fucking defense in all of the west. Everything else in engineering is outsourced to other countries through imperialism. It’s why I’m doing train stuff. You gotta deal with companies that are in the top 10 evil companies of the world, but I avoid it as much as possible. The defense contractors even found ways to integrate working in the public transport sector to bring it under their umbrella. Sucks

I feel like I’m always coming to his defense, but I didn’t see a significant change in tone nor a too-mean tone? The “lying” was specifically about the tactic of making a comparison implying the worsening over time of an issue that we really need to grab as a whole general issue. Of course it’s terrible but it’s only a small example of a general, a specific that shows the universal, not something that needs to be talked about as outlandish and preposterous. “Lying” might not be the correct word, but it’s pretty close to what happens even when well-intended.

But where was the tone switch? There was like one tweet where he clarifies that it’s not personal, and I think that it was fine and fits. Those reading that as a switch misunderstand the general critique in the first place. An accusation of incorrect analysis and damaging framing doesn’t make someone forever evil or something: it gives a chance to realize, fix, and improve. It’s only personal when the argument is taken as a critique of a person instead of a tactic.

Is it impossible to critique someone thoroughly and also not be critiquing them as a person? I think that’s a yes, fully dependent on the correctness of the critique and the willingness to learn from the critiqued

Is being critical of Andreas Malm supposed to be a bad thing here? That’s the author of the “How to Blow up a Pipeline” right? I think we absolutely need to be critical of that book and the strategies it works with. Max isn’t critical for nothing

I’ve been listening to these books since your post, got through most of them. The Gotha Program is really hard to listen to with skips everywhere, but it’s the Dessalines version which has this problem on their site too. But any chance of new uploads? I always prefer this feed to finding a book and making an internal audiobook.

Well we at Hexbear like to assume, rightly or wrongly, that shame is the best to convince some sorts of people to rethink. People have wasted much energy trying to nicely convince these types when it turned out they were entirely unwilling to consider that they are misinformed. Your comments have mirrored how those look with a very reddit-like demeanor. If you’re sincere, consider commenting as if you’re not on reddit and looking to figure out what’s true and people will engage happily. I’ve learned a lot by doing that.

Remember, the US have spent tens of times more money on propaganda around the world than any other country (remember, US propaganda is different in form than e.g. USSR, but mostly because their way is MORE effective). Europe+the US has spent more in 40 years than the rest of the world ever. Imagine the impact this has on your worldview before reading any news or positions taken in politics around the world.

I am totally convinced that Britain has the chemicals (the US too) for cases like this, though Navalny was almost surely a true Russian attempt

Thanks comrade!

Ok, my question still lingering is then for your second example. Why does variable capital cost not vary with hours worked? It seems like my confusion mostly is arising from that, and I’d guess Marx was assuming a daily wage regardless of hours worked set at “necessary” labour wage. This is also likely a result of his analysis that wages tend towards only necessary labor costs, so just taking it from there makes sense.

Otherwise I could see it ss approaching the problem with assumptions of the person he is critiquing, and I’ll accept that, too.

Well, as sad as it is, it often does make people very irritable. I can’t imagine what it is like to forget but have this feeling that you must have forgotten because people are frustrated at you. Every person I’ve known with dementia became easily frustrated and angrier than before when the situation became frustrating. It’s why caretakers who can keep people happy are so impressive, even when people forget the way to the bathroom.

But fuck Biden. Idgaf if he has dementia or not honestly

Thanks comrade, take your time, I’m already through most of ch 10 and this question is permanent in my mind so an answer anytime in the next month is genuinely find.

So I think now, after reading a bit more elsewhere, that Marx begins with the assumption of a set wage for the “day’s” labour-power, regardless of the time actually spent labouring. That is why the ratios vary differently than if one were paid per hour/per minute or whatever.

Let’s go comrades, we can catch up and hold pace! I made it through 3 weeks this week and now almost back at pace

Lol thanks for trying to help! It’s all good, I’m sure Quark will have some like fully cited page written by the time I wake up tomorrow. Or not and I wait with anticipation for chapter 18

But very simple math way to ask it is why does Marx say :

12 hours of work divided into 10 for c, 1 for v, and 1 for s instead of:

5/6 of a day for c, 1/12 of a day for v and 1/12 for s

?

That’s question 1.

Question 2 is: Why would making the 12 hour day into an 11 hour day change the rate of surplus value? Isn’t it only the total surplus, not the rate, which would change? (Note, I understand upkeep costs generally, though it’s in this case almost insignificant relative to what marx is doing).

Yes, so my question is then, if we analyze rate of surplus by using fractions instead of totals like Marx does, is that still correct but with necessary labor time as the definite value which determines the magnitude?

It would be like: 1/8=v

6/8=c

1/8=s

So rate is (1/8)/(1/8) =%100

Is Marx agreeing or disagreeing while critiquing the “last hour” claim? The math of the chapter tends to disagree (because the c doesn’t vary with the hours worked, which I would guess it would considering the need for more cotton to spin during the last hour). But maybe that’s because he’s assuming v wouldn’t vary in this scenario (labour power is purchased and the time of labour is not considered related here?)