r/linuxmasterrace's liberal freezepeach warrior says death threats are free speech archive.is

Submitted by zombie_berkman in ShitLiberalsSay (edited )

some low lights:

"You can say anything that we don't dislike". That's not freedom.

Yo I'm all for name-calling. There's a difference between name-calling and government violence, though.

speech != action

"everybody who disagrees with meh iz a neo-nasi!!!111!!" --every liberal

lolbertarian reporting for duty http://archive.is/8kaPF


You must log in or register to comment.


zombie_berkman wrote

just got a new one "FOSS isn't left-wing."

RMS literally created the gnu project because he didnt like the private control and property rights companies were doing to software. literally founded on anticapitalist values


DissidentRage wrote

I wish it were easier to convince RMS of that.


zombie_berkman wrote

i mean he will admit to everything except for the anticapitalist part because selling things = capitalism apparently


mofongo wrote

selling things = capitalism

It is though.


sudo wrote

No, an exchange of one thing for another is trade, even if one the things being exchanged is money. Capitalism is a mode of production.


mofongo wrote

Thanks for expanding my point for me. You should change that 'no' for 'yes' though.


sudo wrote

You're not making any sense. If you acknowledge that selling something is just trade, then that it is not necessarily capitalist. But then you still say it is. Either it is, or it isn't. You are being contradictory.


mofongo wrote (edited )

Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.

A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.

This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says,

“one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value ... An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.”[8]

As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.

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 the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.

Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.

We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form.

K. Marx, Capital vol 1, chapter 1.

TL;DR Trade, i.e. exchange, is capitalism.


emma wrote (edited )



鬼神 Kill Em All 1989

I am trash man

410,757,864,530 DEAD COPS


sudo wrote

What /u/emma said. He's just defining exchange value here - nowhere in here does he say that it's fundamental to capitalism (and it wouldn't make sense if he did, because trade existed long before capitalism did).


Cosine wrote

Is there a non-archive.is link? That site is blocked on my network (and I assume many others, due to its ability to serve as a proxy).