Words    Words    Words

Section 2 is “The two-fold character of the labour embodied in commodities”
Page 41: “At first sight a commodity presented itself to us a complex of two things–use-value and exchange-value.  Later on, we saw also that labour, too, possesses the same two-fold nature: for, so far as it finds expression in value, it does not possess [...]

[Read more →]

Inspired by this post.
I haven’t gotten involved in the “anti-racism” discussion, and, really, I’m still not.  I am replying to my good friend Will Shetterly’s comments on it, because I am a Red, and we Reds have a tradition of  saving our vitriol for those who come closest to agreeing with us.  I am doing [...]

[Read more →]

Page 39: “We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production.  Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.  Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities [...]

[Read more →]

After several conversations with Reesa, what I think is the last chunk of Tiassa has fallen into place well enough that I can see where I’m going.  I think.  Maybe.  For the moment.  So I believe I’m on track to finish it.   I have noticed that, with each of the last several books, I have [...]

[Read more →]

Brust’s Law is as follows: Truth is counter-intuitive.
I remember the first time a teacher explained to me that a gas took up more volume per weight than the same substance as a solid.  That was obviously ridiculous; gas is malleable, so clearly it can be pressed into a smaller space than a solid would.  Right?  [...]

[Read more →]

We now have three concepts: use-value, exchange-value, and value.  (I’m not sure under what conditions Marx capitalizes the V in value; it seems inconsistent, but I’m guessing there is a reason for it somewhere).
Use-value refers to the material particulars of the commodity; size, weight, chemical composition, shape, &c.  Exchange-value refers to the quantity of that [...]

[Read more →]

Amanda Palmer has been involved in some controversy regarding a recent project (thank you, Miarr, for pointing me to it).  I’m not talking about it, thinking about it, or linking to it.  And if the controversy itself becomes the subject here, I’ll probably close comments.
But, in the course of the discussion, she said something that [...]

[Read more →]

Today I was at a Borders looking for Poker Pro magazine (on account of I’m in it, how cool is that?).  While there, I, as usual, checked the sf section to see how well represented I was.  I skimmed past the row Jim Butcher, found the row of Lois Bujold, and there I was.  Two [...]

[Read more →]

Page 38: “If then we leave out of consideration the use-value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour.  But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands.  If we make abstraction from its use-value, we make abstraction at the same time from [...]

[Read more →]

Page 36: “Exchange-value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for for those of another sort, a relation constantly changing with time and place.”
Since I was just discussing this with Scott in the previous post, I’ll quote myself, so I [...]

[Read more →]