Err, yeah…England “joined” WWII for “profit” then spent the next 70 years paying off Lend Lease. Okay, this guy has got to be a troll.
[quote]kamui wrote:
It’s the same dude. I think his latest semester just ended so he wants to try and show off what he’s learned since the last time we all laughed at him.
He apparently had the ultra leftist 1960’s professor this last term that taught him all about the “baby killers”.
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Her camera produces videos.
Her videos can become products.
She is a capitalist. Like everyone with an Iphone.
Yes, that’s it.
Hollywood 
[/quote]
Please understand the discussion. Means of production does not mean a product lol.
Buying an iphone does not make you a capitalist, it makes you a consumer, owning a factory that makres iphones and paying the workers a wage and extracting surplus value from them and making profit makes you one.
Please go read a book or somehting, because that is incredibly embarassing for you.
[/quote]
The camera produces the product(videos) therefore the camera is the means of production. You’re a halfwit.
[/quote]
Ha. Holy shit dude, please go figure out what means of production entails when talking about class and economics. Holyshit.
[/quote]
Ok, I’ll bite. How is a camera that you own that also produces video to sell not owning capital equipment used in the means of production. The only out I see is that some definitions of “capital equipment” carry a minimum purchase price to qualify for tax purposes, like $5k, but that seems to be splitting hairs for purposes of Kamui’s point.
Edit: Especially when your point was that the amount of wages doesn’t matter, only whether you were a wage earner or profiteer for the purpose of determining class status.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What is it you don’t understand?[/quote]
I don’t think there’s enough bandwidth for this answer. [/quote]
Hahahah
[quote]
He apparently had the ultra leftist 1960’s professor this last term that taught him all about the “baby killers”.[/quote]
That’s not an excuse.
Many of my own professors were direct students of Althusser, Sartre, Foucault or Deleuze and i met a few ex-maoists in my younger days.
But I still have a brain.
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Although she may be incorrect about what is in their hearts… [/quote]
That is my point.
We are required by law to follow order, but that is never (in my experience) the real reason we do what we do. [/quote]
Whole bunch of bullshit. [/quote]
I thought you weren’t gonna respond to me?
[/quote]
Doing a great job of saying, i might take part in the brutal murder of hundreds of thousands of women and children, but I don’t purposefully do it for Hallibrton.
Good for you, you take part in the slaughter because as long as you are fit you can do it and you are willfully ignorant you qualify.
I hope you have a great life.[/quote]
Lol
Well, don’t worry. If you ever need us (again), we’ll still come. [/quote]
Again America joined ww2 (late) for profit, the same as England did, Germany did and all the other big players did.
And again, this wierd idea the Marines have ever done anything to save people, you are a bunch of undereducated men from working class homes who joined the mariens mainly due to lack of choices in life and kill people when the capitalsit class influence the government to enact these conflicts.
All your dead and limbless and mutilated comrades die for rich people. nd you sit there like a goon ating like you save people.
The US marines dies in part to side with England in an intra imperialist war.
It is almost like the American revolution wasnt really against tyranny.
[/quote]
Uneducated? The vast majority of those who enlist in the US military are decidedly middle class, although I realize you have asserted no such thing exists. Says the person whose posts are rife with spelling and grammatical errors, which isn’t very English of you.
You are conflating states’ desire for security and that for profit. Power is often the motivating factor, not merely wealth. Knowingly spending vast sums of blood and treasure is self-defeating if that was the case. Now, paint me a picture of how England and the US economically benefitted from WWII and that was the primary motivation for entering the conflict. Remember, correlation does not imply causation.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
He apparently had the ultra leftist 1960’s professor this last term that taught him all about the “baby killers”.[/quote]
That’s not an excuse.
Many of my own professors were direct students of Althusser, Sartre, Foucault or Deleuze and i met a few ex-maoists in my younger days.
But I still have a brain. [/quote]
That’s badass. But man, talk about some heavy angst to deal with all in one place. I hope you at least had some good banjo music to lighten the mood.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
Please go read a book or somehting, because that is incredibly embarassing for you.
[/quote]
two things:
- You don’t even know the qualifications of the person you are insulting.
- I was right, you are the same person back with a new name… [/quote]
Who is Greyskull the reincarnation of?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
Please go read a book or somehting, because that is incredibly embarassing for you.
[/quote]
two things:
- You don’t even know the qualifications of the person you are insulting.
- I was right, you are the same person back with a new name… [/quote]
Who is Greyskull the reincarnation of? [/quote]
I can’t remember his name but it is the same line for leftist bullshit, followed up with “I’m a libertarian” anarchist college student.
He was the dude that brought up that single city that “lived in anarchy” for a couple years during civil war as proof it would work across the globe.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
Please go read a book or somehting, because that is incredibly embarassing for you.
[/quote]
two things:
- You don’t even know the qualifications of the person you are insulting.
- I was right, you are the same person back with a new name… [/quote]
Who is Greyskull the reincarnation of? [/quote]
I can’t remember his name but it is the same line for leftist bullshit, followed up with “I’m a libertarian” anarchist college student.
He was the dude that brought up that single city that “lived in anarchy” for a couple years during civil war as proof it would work across the globe.[/quote]
Oh Christ, I remember that now…
Edit: Wish I hadn’t though.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I can’t remember his name but it is the same line for leftist bullshit, followed up with “I’m a libertarian” anarchist college student.
He was the dude that brought up that single city that “lived in anarchy” for a couple years during civil war as proof it would work across the globe.[/quote]
You can’t possibly mean…
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I can’t remember his name but it is the same line for leftist bullshit, followed up with “I’m a libertarian” anarchist college student.
He was the dude that brought up that single city that “lived in anarchy” for a couple years during civil war as proof it would work across the globe.[/quote]
You can’t possibly mean…[/quote]
It might be him, but I thought that dude was older.
This person is either a master troll, a professor, or actually a college student. Because he sounds like every theoretical leftist sociology class I’ve ever sat through.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I can’t remember his name but it is the same line for leftist bullshit, followed up with “I’m a libertarian” anarchist college student.
He was the dude that brought up that single city that “lived in anarchy” for a couple years during civil war as proof it would work across the globe.[/quote]
You can’t possibly mean…[/quote]
It might be him, but I thought that dude was older.
This person is either a master troll, a professor, or actually a college student. Because he sounds like every theoretical leftist sociology class I’ve ever sat through. [/quote]
Yeah, Lifty’s in his forties, and if I recall correctly he typically wrote better than this fellow, although pretending to be a semi-literate British twentysomething could just be an elaborate cover.
He was also a Marine who did not look back upon his service fondly, which, I thought, might also explain his somewhat strong opinions about the Marines.
But who knows for sure?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I can’t remember his name but it is the same line for leftist bullshit, followed up with “I’m a libertarian” anarchist college student.
He was the dude that brought up that single city that “lived in anarchy” for a couple years during civil war as proof it would work across the globe.[/quote]
You can’t possibly mean…[/quote]
It might be him, but I thought that dude was older.
This person is either a master troll, a professor, or actually a college student. Because he sounds like every theoretical leftist sociology class I’ve ever sat through. [/quote]
Yeah, Lifty’s in his forties, and if I recall correctly he typically wrote better than this fellow, although pretending to be a semi-literate British twentysomething could just be an elaborate cover.
He was also a Marine who did not look back upon his service fondly, which, I thought, might also explain his somewhat strong opinions about the Marines.
But who knows for sure?[/quote]
Yeah, this is conjecture of the highest order, but the pattern is too ripe to not speculate it.
Either way, the whole “baby killer” line of attack is new, and the spring semester just ended, so I put two and two together.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Err, yeah…England “joined” WWII for “profit” then spent the next 70 years paying off Lend Lease. Okay, this guy has got to be a troll.[/quote]
Again you fail to realise, they to to war for profit, for the profit of the corporations, capitalist class who get the state to pursue the war.
Again, when i say the US went to war for profit or England went to war in ww2 for profit, I am talking about the state going to war because of the influence of the capitalist class who have influence and power in the political aparatus.
When people say the Iraw war was about oil they mean for the oil companies who have influence, when they say it was for private contacts for huge corporations they mean halliburton influenced the war.
No one is saying the nations of governemnts or people benefit from them.
Oh wait.
NOW I know who you’re talking about.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Her camera produces videos.
Her videos can become products.
She is a capitalist. Like everyone with an Iphone.
Yes, that’s it.
Hollywood [/quote]
Please understand the discussion. Means of production does not mean a product lol.
Buying an iphone does not make you a capitalist, it makes you a consumer, owning a factory that makres iphones and paying the workers a wage and extracting surplus value from them and making profit makes you one.
Please go read a book or somehting, because that is incredibly embarassing for you.
[/quote]
The camera produces the product(videos) therefore the camera is the means of production. You’re a halfwit.
[/quote]
Ha. Holy shit dude, please go figure out what means of production entails when talking about class and economics. Holyshit.
[/quote]
Ok, I’ll bite. How is a camera that you own that also produces video to sell not owning capital equipment used in the means of production. The only out I see is that some definitions of “capital equipment” carry a minimum purchase price to qualify for tax purposes, like $5k, but that seems to be splitting hairs for purposes of Kamui’s point.
Edit: Especially when your point was that the amount of wages doesn’t matter, only whether you were a wage earner or profiteer for the purpose of determining class status.
[/quote]
Becuase the camera is not producing something in this situation, in this situation it is not an actual sngle commodity operation, it is selling a video, so in this case the means of production is not the same as it is in a factory.
So while in a factory the capitalist own the means of production, the machines or material that make the product that the worker makes for a wage. Once the commodity is complete the capitalist sells it rendering surplus value.
so if someone is making their own videos and selling them they are not using wage labour, so they are not rendering surplus value from anyone. Thus it is not a worker/capitalist scenario.
In a film, the means of production are owned by the film studio so that would be classed as means of production.
Someone making their own videos on youtube has no buisness so calling their camera a means of production is like calling my weight belt means of production, no value is being acrued so refering to it as so is just plain nonsensical.
He refered to his sister making videos on a camera on youtube.
Of course the cameras, studios, props etc are means of production when value is being acrued.
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Err, yeah…England “joined” WWII for “profit” then spent the next 70 years paying off Lend Lease. Okay, this guy has got to be a troll.[/quote]
Again you fail to realise, they to to war for profit, for the profit of the corporations, capitalist class who get the state to pursue the war.
Again, when i say the US went to war for profit or England went to war in ww2 for profit, I am talking about the state going to war because of the influence of the capitalist class who have influence and power in the political aparatus.
When people say the Iraw war was about oil they mean for the oil companies who have influence, when they say it was for private contacts for huge corporations they mean halliburton influenced the war.
No one is saying the nations of governemnts or people benefit from them.[/quote]
As I said, you’re a halfwit. Britain went to war because it was the resolve of the people and parliament to do so due to the perfidy and danger of Germany.
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Her camera produces videos.
Her videos can become products.
She is a capitalist. Like everyone with an Iphone.
Yes, that’s it.
Hollywood [/quote]
Please understand the discussion. Means of production does not mean a product lol.
Buying an iphone does not make you a capitalist, it makes you a consumer, owning a factory that makres iphones and paying the workers a wage and extracting surplus value from them and making profit makes you one.
Please go read a book or somehting, because that is incredibly embarassing for you.
[/quote]
The camera produces the product(videos) therefore the camera is the means of production. You’re a halfwit.
[/quote]
Ha. Holy shit dude, please go figure out what means of production entails when talking about class and economics. Holyshit.
[/quote]
Ok, I’ll bite. How is a camera that you own that also produces video to sell not owning capital equipment used in the means of production. The only out I see is that some definitions of “capital equipment” carry a minimum purchase price to qualify for tax purposes, like $5k, but that seems to be splitting hairs for purposes of Kamui’s point.
Edit: Especially when your point was that the amount of wages doesn’t matter, only whether you were a wage earner or profiteer for the purpose of determining class status.
[/quote]
Becuase the camera is not producing something in this situation, in this situation it is not an actual sngle commodity operation, it is selling a video, so in this case the means of production is not the same as it is in a factory.
So while in a factory the capitalist own the means of production, the machines or material that make the product that the worker makes for a wage. Once the commodity is complete the capitalist sells it rendering surplus value.
so if someone is making their own videos and selling them they are not using wage labour, so they are not rendering surplus value from anyone. Thus it is not a worker/capitalist scenario.
In a film, the means of production are owned by the film studio so that would be classed as means of production.
Someone making their own videos on youtube has no buisness so calling their camera a means of production is like calling my weight belt means of production, no value is being acrued so refering to it as so is just plain nonsensical.
He refered to his sister making videos on a camera on youtube.
Of course the cameras, studios, props etc are means of production when value is being acrued.
[/quote]
Ok. I think I got it. If I shoot a video of my sister and brother goofing off on my iphone and sell it and make money, I’m not a capitalist. I’m just a guy with an iphone making money.
But if I hand my iphone to my brother and pay him $10 to film my sister goofing off, and pay her $10 to goof off, and then sell that video, now I’m a capitalist and they are wage slaves, although now the slaves have $10 more than they did when I was just a dude with an iphone and not a capitalist.
Makes sense.
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]GreySkull wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Her camera produces videos.
Her videos can become products.
She is a capitalist. Like everyone with an Iphone.
Yes, that’s it.
Hollywood [/quote]
Please understand the discussion. Means of production does not mean a product lol.
Buying an iphone does not make you a capitalist, it makes you a consumer, owning a factory that makres iphones and paying the workers a wage and extracting surplus value from them and making profit makes you one.
Please go read a book or somehting, because that is incredibly embarassing for you.
[/quote]
The camera produces the product(videos) therefore the camera is the means of production. You’re a halfwit.
[/quote]
Ha. Holy shit dude, please go figure out what means of production entails when talking about class and economics. Holyshit.
[/quote]
Ok, I’ll bite. How is a camera that you own that also produces video to sell not owning capital equipment used in the means of production. The only out I see is that some definitions of “capital equipment” carry a minimum purchase price to qualify for tax purposes, like $5k, but that seems to be splitting hairs for purposes of Kamui’s point.
Edit: Especially when your point was that the amount of wages doesn’t matter, only whether you were a wage earner or profiteer for the purpose of determining class status.
[/quote]
Becuase the camera is not producing something in this situation, in this situation it is not an actual sngle commodity operation, it is selling a video, so in this case the means of production is not the same as it is in a factory.
So while in a factory the capitalist own the means of production, the machines or material that make the product that the worker makes for a wage. Once the commodity is complete the capitalist sells it rendering surplus value.
so if someone is making their own videos and selling them they are not using wage labour, so they are not rendering surplus value from anyone. Thus it is not a worker/capitalist scenario.
In a film, the means of production are owned by the film studio so that would be classed as means of production.
Someone making their own videos on youtube has no buisness so calling their camera a means of production is like calling my weight belt means of production, no value is being acrued so refering to it as so is just plain nonsensical.
He refered to his sister making videos on a camera on youtube.
Of course the cameras, studios, props etc are means of production when value is being acrued.
[/quote]
Let’s try it again :
A camera produces videos.
A video is a product.
Each and every time my sister sell them and make a profit, her videos have added value and are surplus products.
Her camera is therefore a “mean of production”, in the strictest meaning of this expression.
But you seem to have a problem with normal meanings, so let’s try marxian phraseology instead.
You could say it’s not a capitalistic mean of production, in a narrower and maybe more orthodoxly marxian meaning, because there is no worker and no wage involved.
But it’s still a mean of production.
Same thing about “surplus value” : you can argue that there is no extraction of surplus value but you can’t argue there is no creation of surplus value.
Because “surplus value” is not a magical formula that proves the existence of workers exploitation. It’s nothing more and nothing less that gross income less cost. Even for Marx.
But let’s say you win…
A camera is not a mean of production and my sister is not a capitalist.
We still have a problem.
Because we now have
-workers, who sell their labor power, and are exploited
-capitalists, who owns the means of production and extracts surplus value
and
-the people like my sister who owns their “tools-that-should-not-be-named-means-of-production” and use them to make some “surplus-money-that-does-not-come-from-a-surplus-value”.
Three classes ! And we will need a name for the last one. Because it’s boringly long to write.