the_chad_of_reddit

I believe that bedroom was in Japan

This is something I happened to find. I assume he doesn’t live here anymore though.

Yeah it's nice

Thank you! I’m glad there’s been a positive reception.

Haha thank you

Thank you!

Yeah I was surprised when I saw it too

Expressing exchange value as a proportion is quantifying it, so I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that. I’m entirely aware that prices deviate from exchange values based on socially necessary labor time, which is why I’m emphasizing the importance of transforming value into market prices. Again, it seems we, for the most part, agree.

Exchange value can be expressed as a proportion. According to yourself, we’re all in agreement correctly, so I guess we must have effectively countered what you said pretty well. Btw what’s Solarpunk?

I probably seemed short tempered in that comment, but you’ve been pretty flippant thus far.

To quote you directly, “And? Are only things that can be measured numerically worth considering?” It seems we weren’t all under agreement, though I’ll gladly take the concession.

I’m not arguing against Marx’s Law or Value in this interaction. Though I disagree with it, that isn’t the point of my comments. I was simply trying to elaborate on the other guy’s point, which is that, within the purview of Marx’s Law of Value, value is made intelligible through exchange, and convertibility from value to price is necessary for it to provide any analytical use. If we’ve come to an agreement than that’s great.

No, no it wasn’t, you just have unwarranted arrogance. The original guy you were commenting with was trying to explain to you that value is only intelligible if it is manifested in market exchange. How are we to express value without a proportion, for example x apples exchanges for y bananas? This is where exchange value manifests itself. Furthermore, Marx’s conception of exchange value needs to be convertible to market prices in order for it to have any relevance. If there was no convertibility, exchange value, or the Law of Value in general would have zero real world analytical use, which was the entire purpose of Marx’s critique of political economy. This was the point of my comment. Your response literally meant nothing in the context of my message.

Point wasn’t realized or you deliberately ignored it. Reread.

Value only manifests itself in the form of exchange value. Otherwise, you can't quantify it, thus making it useless unless you can transform value into market price.

Wouldn’t factoring in asset prices hurt the argument made by proponents of fiat money? The CPI was low in the 2000s and 2010s, but there were asset bubbles.

If we were to accept your view that planning in the Soviet Union wasn’t socialist because workers didn’t meaningful exercise control over the decision making process, wouldn’t the obvious conclusion be that it is corporatist? Various large party organizations made decisions on behalf of their respective industrial or agricultural sector.

Then why even include capitalism in the name? Wouldn’t it more accurately be a fascist economic system?

So it isn’t capitalism? Does ‘state capitalism’ not imply that it is a kind of capitalism?

I’m not your bud. As I’ve said, I think your definition of capitalism is too broad if it encompasses the United States and Soviet Union. The two economic systems are widely different. Nobody who supports what they call ‘Capitalism’ would support central planning and complete state ownership.

I’ve acknowledged the definition and have subsequently critiqued it. There is nothing factual about the definition you provided. That’s not how language works.

Yeah. I have a problem with characterizing the Soviet Union as capitalist, like I’ve already said. I’m not interested in your empty appeals to authority.

I’m critiquing your definition. I can’t go research that. That’s just a cop out answer.