#marxism — Public Fediverse posts

The dialectical refutation of formal logic

The dialectical method is an advanced and comprehensive way of understanding things on a deep level. It was by using dialectics that Marx and Engels, at a time when capitalism was taking the world to new and great heights, predicted that it would later become so regressive that humanity would need to overthrow it to advance further. The dialectic is a method of analysis that has been thoroughly vindicated by history. But what is it?

The first thing the dialectician must understand is that formal logic is insufficient for gaining a deep understanding of anything.

Formal logic is a series of simple logical statements:

- Every object is equal to itself (A = A)
- An object is never equal to its own negation (A =/= not A)
- Every object is either equal or not equal to some other object (exactly one of the following is always true, never neither, never both: B = A, or B =/= A)

These premises have guided logical thought since the time of Ancient Greece. They appear to be common sense. But, upon close inspection, we see that they are all wrong.

Imagine two bags, each filled with a kilogram of sugar. Suppose "A" represents "a bag full of a kilogram of sugar". Since that describes both our objects, common sense would dictate that they are equal to each other. A = A. But if we were to count each grain of sugar, we would surely find that the two bags have different amounts. If we were to put them under a microscope, we would find that different amounts and perhaps different species of microscopic organisms live on each bag, and on the sugar.

The bags of sugar are not even equal to themselves. They are constantly undergoing imperceptible changes: a grain of sugar has shifted, a thread in the bag has slightly frayed on a microscopic level, etc. Look close enough and you will always find that A =/= A.

If an object can never truly equal itself, then the second and third premises of formal logic are false as well.

This is not to say that formal logic is useless. Obviously, if you are buying sugar to use in your cooking, this is a simple enough task that those microscopic differences and movements don't matter; for your purposes, A = A.

But understanding history and the development of social orders is no simple task. It is here where formal logic fails us. For this, we need dialectics.

So what is the dialectical method, that advanced form of analysis that does allow us to understand history and the progression of society? If this post was engaging to you and you'd like to learn more, see chapter 1 of What is Marxism? by Alan Woods, written by Rob Sewell and featuring direct quotes and significant excerpts from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Hegel. They've explained it better than I can. https://marxist.com/what-is-marxism-book/1.-dialectical-materialism.htm (tags: #Marxism #communism #philosophy #history)

The dialectical refutation of formal logic

The dialectical method is an advanced and comprehensive way of understanding things on a deep level. It was by using dialectics that Marx and Engels, at a time when capitalism was taking the world to new and great heights, predicted that it would later become so regressive that humanity would need to overthrow it to advance further. The dialectic is a method of analysis that has been thoroughly vindicated by history. But what is it?

The first thing the dialectician must understand is that formal logic is insufficient for gaining a deep understanding of anything.

Formal logic is a series of simple logical statements:

- Every object is equal to itself (A = A)
- An object is never equal to its own negation (A =/= not A)
- Every object is either equal or not equal to some other object (exactly one of the following is always true, never neither, never both: B = A, or B =/= A)

These premises have guided logical thought since the time of Ancient Greece. They appear to be common sense. But, upon close inspection, we see that they are all wrong.

Imagine two bags, each filled with a kilogram of sugar. Suppose "A" represents "a bag full of a kilogram of sugar". Since that describes both our objects, common sense would dictate that they are equal to each other. A = A. But if we were to count each grain of sugar, we would surely find that the two bags have different amounts. If we were to put them under a microscope, we would find that different amounts and perhaps different species of microscopic organisms live on each bag, and on the sugar.

The bags of sugar are not even equal to themselves. They are constantly undergoing imperceptible changes: a grain of sugar has shifted, a thread in the bag has slightly frayed on a microscopic level, etc. Look close enough and you will always find that A =/= A.

If an object can never truly equal itself, then the second and third premises of formal logic are false as well.

This is not to say that formal logic is useless. Obviously, if you are buying sugar to use in your cooking, this is a simple enough task that those microscopic differences and movements don't matter; for your purposes, A = A.

But understanding history and the development of social orders is no simple task. It is here where formal logic fails us. For this, we need dialectics.

So what is the dialectical method, that advanced form of analysis that does allow us to understand history and the progression of society? If this post was engaging to you and you'd like to learn more, see chapter 1 of What is Marxism? by Alan Woods, written by Rob Sewell and featuring direct quotes and significant excerpts from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Hegel. They've explained it better than I can. https://marxist.com/what-is-marxism-book/1.-dialectical-materialism.htm (tags: #Marxism #communism #philosophy #history)

The dialectical refutation of formal logic

The dialectical method is an advanced and comprehensive way of understanding things on a deep level. It was by using dialectics that Marx and Engels, at a time when capitalism was taking the world to new and great heights, predicted that it would later become so regressive that humanity would need to overthrow it to advance further. The dialectic is a method of analysis that has been thoroughly vindicated by history. But what is it?

The first thing the dialectician must understand is that formal logic is insufficient for gaining a deep understanding of anything.

Formal logic is a series of simple logical statements:

- Every object is equal to itself (A = A)
- An object is never equal to its own negation (A =/= not A)
- Every object is either equal or not equal to some other object (exactly one of the following is always true, never neither, never both: B = A, or B =/= A)

These premises have guided logical thought since the time of Ancient Greece. They appear to be common sense. But, upon close inspection, we see that they are all wrong.

Imagine two bags, each filled with a kilogram of sugar. Suppose "A" represents "a bag full of a kilogram of sugar". Since that describes both our objects, common sense would dictate that they are equal to each other. A = A. But if we were to count each grain of sugar, we would surely find that the two bags have different amounts. If we were to put them under a microscope, we would find that different amounts and perhaps different species of microscopic organisms live on each bag, and on the sugar.

The bags of sugar are not even equal to themselves. They are constantly undergoing imperceptible changes: a grain of sugar has shifted, a thread in the bag has slightly frayed on a microscopic level, etc. Look close enough and you will always find that A =/= A.

If an object can never truly equal itself, then the second and third premises of formal logic are false as well.

This is not to say that formal logic is useless. Obviously, if you are buying sugar to use in your cooking, this is a simple enough task that those microscopic differences and movements don't matter; for your purposes, A = A.

But understanding history and the development of social orders is no simple task. It is here where formal logic fails us. For this, we need dialectics.

So what is the dialectical method, that advanced form of analysis that does allow us to understand history and the progression of society? If this post was engaging to you and you'd like to learn more, see chapter 1 of What is Marxism? by Alan Woods, written by Rob Sewell and featuring direct quotes and significant excerpts from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Hegel. They've explained it better than I can. https://marxist.com/what-is-marxism-book/1.-dialectical-materialism.htm (tags: #Marxism #communism #philosophy #history)

The dialectical refutation of formal logic

The dialectical method is an advanced and comprehensive way of understanding things on a deep level. It was by using dialectics that Marx and Engels, at a time when capitalism was taking the world to new and great heights, predicted that it would later become so regressive that humanity would need to overthrow it to advance further. The dialectic is a method of analysis that has been thoroughly vindicated by history. But what is it?

The first thing the dialectician must understand is that formal logic is insufficient for gaining a deep understanding of anything.

Formal logic is a series of simple logical statements:

- Every object is equal to itself (A = A)
- An object is never equal to its own negation (A =/= not A)
- Every object is either equal or not equal to some other object (exactly one of the following is always true, never neither, never both: B = A, or B =/= A)

These premises have guided logical thought since the time of Ancient Greece. They appear to be common sense. But, upon close inspection, we see that they are all wrong.

Imagine two bags, each filled with a kilogram of sugar. Suppose "A" represents "a bag full of a kilogram of sugar". Since that describes both our objects, common sense would dictate that they are equal to each other. A = A. But if we were to count each grain of sugar, we would surely find that the two bags have different amounts. If we were to put them under a microscope, we would find that different amounts and perhaps different species of microscopic organisms live on each bag, and on the sugar.

The bags of sugar are not even equal to themselves. They are constantly undergoing imperceptible changes: a grain of sugar has shifted, a thread in the bag has slightly frayed on a microscopic level, etc. Look close enough and you will always find that A =/= A.

If an object can never truly equal itself, then the second and third premises of formal logic are false as well.

This is not to say that formal logic is useless. Obviously, if you are buying sugar to use in your cooking, this is a simple enough task that those microscopic differences and movements don't matter; for your purposes, A = A.

But understanding history and the development of social orders is no simple task. It is here where formal logic fails us. For this, we need dialectics.

So what is the dialectical method, that advanced form of analysis that does allow us to understand history and the progression of society? If this post was engaging to you and you'd like to learn more, see chapter 1 of What is Marxism? by Alan Woods, written by Rob Sewell and featuring direct quotes and significant excerpts from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Hegel. They've explained it better than I can. https://marxist.com/what-is-marxism-book/1.-dialectical-materialism.htm (tags: #Marxism #communism #philosophy #history)

The dialectical refutation of formal logic

The dialectical method is an advanced and comprehensive way of understanding things on a deep level. It was by using dialectics that Marx and Engels, at a time when capitalism was taking the world to new and great heights, predicted that it would later become so regressive that humanity would need to overthrow it to advance further. The dialectic is a method of analysis that has been thoroughly vindicated by history. But what is it?

The first thing the dialectician must understand is that formal logic is insufficient for gaining a deep understanding of anything.

Formal logic is a series of simple logical statements:

- Every object is equal to itself (A = A)
- An object is never equal to its own negation (A =/= not A)
- Every object is either equal or not equal to some other object (exactly one of the following is always true, never neither, never both: B = A, or B =/= A)

These premises have guided logical thought since the time of Ancient Greece. They appear to be common sense. But, upon close inspection, we see that they are all wrong.

Imagine two bags, each filled with a kilogram of sugar. Suppose "A" represents "a bag full of a kilogram of sugar". Since that describes both our objects, common sense would dictate that they are equal to each other. A = A. But if we were to count each grain of sugar, we would surely find that the two bags have different amounts. If we were to put them under a microscope, we would find that different amounts and perhaps different species of microscopic organisms live on each bag, and on the sugar.

The bags of sugar are not even equal to themselves. They are constantly undergoing imperceptible changes: a grain of sugar has shifted, a thread in the bag has slightly frayed on a microscopic level, etc. Look close enough and you will always find that A =/= A.

If an object can never truly equal itself, then the second and third premises of formal logic are false as well.

This is not to say that formal logic is useless. Obviously, if you are buying sugar to use in your cooking, this is a simple enough task that those microscopic differences and movements don't matter; for your purposes, A = A.

But understanding history and the development of social orders is no simple task. It is here where formal logic fails us. For this, we need dialectics.

So what is the dialectical method, that advanced form of analysis that does allow us to understand history and the progression of society? If this post was engaging to you and you'd like to learn more, see chapter 1 of What is Marxism? by Alan Woods, written by Rob Sewell and featuring direct quotes and significant excerpts from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Hegel. They've explained it better than I can. https://marxist.com/what-is-marxism-book/1.-dialectical-materialism.htm (tags: #Marxism #communism #philosophy #history)

#CurrentlyReading "Reds: The Tragedy of American #Communism", an excellent, detailed history of the Communist Party USA. They scored some impressive victories for labor in their first few decades, and had an admirable commitment to anti-racism that was rare for majority-white orgs of the time. But later decades found the #CPUSA stagnating, comfortable in their role as well-funded lapdogs to a generous Moscow. "History repeats, first as tragedy..." #Marxism #Socialism #History #Politics #USPol

#CurrentlyReading "Reds: The Tragedy of American #Communism", an excellent, detailed history of the Communist Party USA. They scored some impressive victories for labor in their first few decades, and had an admirable commitment to anti-racism that was rare for majority-white orgs of the time. But later decades found the #CPUSA stagnating, comfortable in their role as well-funded lapdogs to a generous Moscow. "History repeats, first as tragedy..." #Marxism #Socialism #History #Politics #USPol

#CurrentlyReading "Reds: The Tragedy of American #Communism", an excellent, detailed history of the Communist Party USA. They scored some impressive victories for labor in their first few decades, and had an admirable commitment to anti-racism that was rare for majority-white orgs of the time. But later decades found the #CPUSA stagnating, comfortable in their role as well-funded lapdogs to a generous Moscow. "History repeats, first as tragedy..." #Marxism #Socialism #History #Politics #USPol

#CurrentlyReading "Reds: The Tragedy of American #Communism", an excellent, detailed history of the Communist Party USA. They scored some impressive victories for labor in their first few decades, and had an admirable commitment to anti-racism that was rare for majority-white orgs of the time. But later decades found the #CPUSA stagnating, comfortable in their role as well-funded lapdogs to a generous Moscow. "History repeats, first as tragedy..." #Marxism #Socialism #History #Politics #USPol

#CurrentlyReading "Reds: The Tragedy of American #Communism", an excellent, detailed history of the Communist Party USA. They scored some impressive victories for labor in their first few decades, and had an admirable commitment to anti-racism that was rare for majority-white orgs of the time. But later decades found the #CPUSA stagnating, comfortable in their role as well-funded lapdogs to a generous Moscow. "History repeats, first as tragedy..." #Marxism #Socialism #History #Politics #USPol

Hello, everyone! My name is Serena, and I'm a communist. I'm interested in meeting other communists and furthering our understanding of Marxism together.

Equally, and perhaps to an even greater degree, I'd like to talk to people who do not think of themselves as communists, but recognise that capitalism is unsustainable, even failing. I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience, this recognition is incredibly demoralising and even depressing, if it is not accompanied by at least a basic understanding of Marxism and at least low-stakes political organising. I hope to be able to help people afflicted by this depression see that a better world is not only possible, but will very soon present us with an opportunity to make it a reality.

And to those of you who make extensive use of the fediverse's content warnings: not to worry, I'll do that too. Putting something upsetting or depressing (anything describing how badly capitalism is working right now, for example) in front of you before you have time to decide whether or not to read it — this is one of the ways that bourgeois social networks harm you and get you hooked on doomscrolling. It will have no place on my profile. #introduction #communism #Marxism #politics #socialism #USpol #USPolitics #CAPol #CDNpoli

Hello, everyone! My name is Serena, and I'm a communist. I'm interested in meeting other communists and furthering our understanding of Marxism together.

Equally, and perhaps to an even greater degree, I'd like to talk to people who do not think of themselves as communists, but recognise that capitalism is unsustainable, even failing. I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience, this recognition is incredibly demoralising and even depressing, if it is not accompanied by at least a basic understanding of Marxism and at least low-stakes political organising. I hope to be able to help people afflicted by this depression see that a better world is not only possible, but will very soon present us with an opportunity to make it a reality.

And to those of you who make extensive use of the fediverse's content warnings: not to worry, I'll do that too. Putting something upsetting or depressing (anything describing how badly capitalism is working right now, for example) in front of you before you have time to decide whether or not to read it — this is one of the ways that bourgeois social networks harm you and get you hooked on doomscrolling. It will have no place on my profile. #introduction #communism #Marxism #politics #socialism #USpol #USPolitics #CAPol #CDNpoli

Hello, everyone! My name is Serena, and I'm a communist. I'm interested in meeting other communists and furthering our understanding of Marxism together.

Equally, and perhaps to an even greater degree, I'd like to talk to people who do not think of themselves as communists, but recognise that capitalism is unsustainable, even failing. I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience, this recognition is incredibly demoralising and even depressing, if it is not accompanied by at least a basic understanding of Marxism and at least low-stakes political organising. I hope to be able to help people afflicted by this depression see that a better world is not only possible, but will very soon present us with an opportunity to make it a reality.

And to those of you who make extensive use of the fediverse's content warnings: not to worry, I'll do that too. Putting something upsetting or depressing (anything describing how badly capitalism is working right now, for example) in front of you before you have time to decide whether or not to read it — this is one of the ways that bourgeois social networks harm you and get you hooked on doomscrolling. It will have no place on my profile. #introduction #communism #Marxism #politics #socialism #USpol #USPolitics #CAPol #CDNpoli

Hello, everyone! My name is Serena, and I'm a communist. I'm interested in meeting other communists and furthering our understanding of Marxism together.

Equally, and perhaps to an even greater degree, I'd like to talk to people who do not think of themselves as communists, but recognise that capitalism is unsustainable, even failing. I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience, this recognition is incredibly demoralising and even depressing, if it is not accompanied by at least a basic understanding of Marxism and at least low-stakes political organising. I hope to be able to help people afflicted by this depression see that a better world is not only possible, but will very soon present us with an opportunity to make it a reality.

And to those of you who make extensive use of the fediverse's content warnings: not to worry, I'll do that too. Putting something upsetting or depressing (anything describing how badly capitalism is working right now, for example) in front of you before you have time to decide whether or not to read it — this is one of the ways that bourgeois social networks harm you and get you hooked on doomscrolling. It will have no place on my profile. #introduction #communism #Marxism #politics #socialism #USpol #USPolitics #CAPol #CDNpoli

Hello, everyone! My name is Serena, and I'm a communist. I'm interested in meeting other communists and furthering our understanding of Marxism together.

Equally, and perhaps to an even greater degree, I'd like to talk to people who do not think of themselves as communists, but recognise that capitalism is unsustainable, even failing. I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience, this recognition is incredibly demoralising and even depressing, if it is not accompanied by at least a basic understanding of Marxism and at least low-stakes political organising. I hope to be able to help people afflicted by this depression see that a better world is not only possible, but will very soon present us with an opportunity to make it a reality.

And to those of you who make extensive use of the fediverse's content warnings: not to worry, I'll do that too. Putting something upsetting or depressing (anything describing how badly capitalism is working right now, for example) in front of you before you have time to decide whether or not to read it — this is one of the ways that bourgeois social networks harm you and get you hooked on doomscrolling. It will have no place on my profile. #introduction #communism #Marxism #politics #socialism #USpol #USPolitics #CAPol #CDNpoli

Ex-KGB officer and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov revealing KGB's subversive tactics against western society as a whole

https://youtu.be/CRqiJSEj5UY?t=4030

@politicalvideos

#politics #sociology #psychology #warfare #marxism

Ex-KGB officer and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov revealing KGB's subversive tactics against western society as a whole

https://youtu.be/CRqiJSEj5UY?t=4030

@politicalvideos

#politics #sociology #psychology #warfare #marxism

Ex-KGB officer and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov revealing KGB's subversive tactics against western society as a whole

https://youtu.be/CRqiJSEj5UY?t=4030

@politicalvideos

#politics #sociology #psychology #warfare #marxism

Ex-KGB officer and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov revealing KGB's subversive tactics against western society as a whole

https://youtu.be/CRqiJSEj5UY?t=4030

@politicalvideos

#politics #sociology #psychology #warfare #marxism

Ex-KGB officer and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov revealing KGB's subversive tactics against western society as a whole

https://youtu.be/CRqiJSEj5UY?t=4030

@politicalvideos

#politics #sociology #psychology #warfare #marxism

Is Islam Compatible with Western Civilisation?

https://wrzky.com/is-islam-compatible-with-western-civilisation/

Is Islam Compatible with Western Civilisation?

https://wrzky.com/is-islam-compatible-with-western-civilisation/

Is Islam Compatible with Western Civilisation?

https://wrzky.com/is-islam-compatible-with-western-civilisation/

Is Islam Compatible with Western Civilisation?

https://wrzky.com/is-islam-compatible-with-western-civilisation/

Is Islam Compatible with Western Civilisation?

https://wrzky.com/is-islam-compatible-with-western-civilisation/

Camus, in The Rebel, breaks with Sartre and orthodox Marxism over historical necessity: the promise that revolution leads somewhere, that History has a direction and will vindicate the struggle. He calls this meaning smuggled back in through the side door. A secular theodicy. If the universe gives no answer, neither does History. Dressing it up as inevitable, directional process is just absurdity wearing a disguise, still begging for the reassurance the absurd exists to refuse.

His answer wasn't to quit the fight. It was to strip it of the guarantee.

What Camus calls the rebel acts against unjust structures with no promise that history will absolve the act, no assurance the arc bends anywhere. Revolt for its own sake, because dignity demands refusing what degrades you, not because victory is coming.

Keep the diagnosis. Class, exploitation, alienation, material conditions, all of it stays.

Drop the teleology. No promised end state. No history owed to you.

#Camus #TheRebel #Absurdism #Marxism #Philosophy

i’ve bought a big bat
#anarchism #memes #marxism #economics #history #politics

i’ve bought a big bat
#anarchism #memes #marxism #economics #history #politics

i’ve bought a big bat
#anarchism #memes #marxism #economics #history #politics

i’ve bought a big bat
#anarchism #memes #marxism #economics #history #politics

i’ve bought a big bat
#anarchism #memes #marxism #economics #history #politics

Des modes de production à la réification du corps technique : Hindess, Hirst, Althusser, Lukács et Vercellone, héritiers de Marx

De Hindess & Hirst à Althusser, de Lukács à Vercellone, les héritiers de Marx prolongent la critique du capitalisme en en refaisant la généalogie (modes de production), la grammaire ontologique de classe (réification) et l’analyse du corps technique du capital. Ils déplacent Marx sans le trahir : État, idéologie, technique, cognition #Marxism

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/03/10/des-modes-de-production-a-la-reification-du-corps-technique-hindess-hirst-althusser-lukacs-et-vercellone-heritiers-de-marx/

Des modes de production à la réification du corps technique : Hindess, Hirst, Althusser, Lukács et Vercellone, héritiers de Marx

De Hindess & Hirst à Althusser, de Lukács à Vercellone, les héritiers de Marx prolongent la critique du capitalisme en en refaisant la généalogie (modes de production), la grammaire ontologique de classe (réification) et l’analyse du corps technique du capital. Ils déplacent Marx sans le trahir : État, idéologie, technique, cognition #Marxism

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/03/10/des-modes-de-production-a-la-reification-du-corps-technique-hindess-hirst-althusser-lukacs-et-vercellone-heritiers-de-marx/

Des modes de production à la réification du corps technique : Hindess, Hirst, Althusser, Lukács et Vercellone, héritiers de Marx

De Hindess & Hirst à Althusser, de Lukács à Vercellone, les héritiers de Marx prolongent la critique du capitalisme en en refaisant la généalogie (modes de production), la grammaire ontologique de classe (réification) et l’analyse du corps technique du capital. Ils déplacent Marx sans le trahir : État, idéologie, technique, cognition #Marxism

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/03/10/des-modes-de-production-a-la-reification-du-corps-technique-hindess-hirst-althusser-lukacs-et-vercellone-heritiers-de-marx/

Des modes de production à la réification du corps technique : Hindess, Hirst, Althusser, Lukács et Vercellone, héritiers de Marx

De Hindess & Hirst à Althusser, de Lukács à Vercellone, les héritiers de Marx prolongent la critique du capitalisme en en refaisant la généalogie (modes de production), la grammaire ontologique de classe (réification) et l’analyse du corps technique du capital. Ils déplacent Marx sans le trahir : État, idéologie, technique, cognition #Marxism

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/03/10/des-modes-de-production-a-la-reification-du-corps-technique-hindess-hirst-althusser-lukacs-et-vercellone-heritiers-de-marx/

Des modes de production à la réification du corps technique : Hindess, Hirst, Althusser, Lukács et Vercellone, héritiers de Marx

De Hindess & Hirst à Althusser, de Lukács à Vercellone, les héritiers de Marx prolongent la critique du capitalisme en en refaisant la généalogie (modes de production), la grammaire ontologique de classe (réification) et l’analyse du corps technique du capital. Ils déplacent Marx sans le trahir : État, idéologie, technique, cognition #Marxism

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/03/10/des-modes-de-production-a-la-reification-du-corps-technique-hindess-hirst-althusser-lukacs-et-vercellone-heritiers-de-marx/

La « classe parasite » : anatomie d’une classe d’appropriation

La « classe parasite » de Nicolas Framont n’est pas une nouvelle classe au sens strict, mais une formule de combat pour désigner la bourgeoisie comme classe d’appropriation. Le parasite n’est pas celui qui reçoit une aide : c’est celui qui privatise la richesse produite collectivement, socialise ses coûts et transforme la propriété en pouvoir sur le travail d’autrui. #ClassStruggle #Marxism #Bourgeoisie…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/07/la-classe-parasite-anatomie-dune-classe-dappropriation/

La « classe parasite » : anatomie d’une classe d’appropriation

La « classe parasite » de Nicolas Framont n’est pas une nouvelle classe au sens strict, mais une formule de combat pour désigner la bourgeoisie comme classe d’appropriation. Le parasite n’est pas celui qui reçoit une aide : c’est celui qui privatise la richesse produite collectivement, socialise ses coûts et transforme la propriété en pouvoir sur le travail d’autrui. #ClassStruggle #Marxism #Bourgeoisie…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/07/la-classe-parasite-anatomie-dune-classe-dappropriation/

La volonté de non-parvenir : vers une utopie anarchocommuniste

Et si la vérité, même lorsqu’elle prétend décrire le réel, ne pouvait jamais se séparer des rapports de pouvoir qui la rendent audible ?Contre la vérité devenue domination, il faut peut-être unir Marx, Foucault, Clastres, Spinoza et Albert Thierry dans une politique de la non-parvenue : désaccumuler, désarmer, dé-hiérarchiser, refaire société. #Anarchism #Communism #Marxism #Foucault #Degrowth…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/07/la-volonte-de-non-parvenir-vers-une-utopie-anarchocommuniste/

La volonté de non-parvenir : vers une utopie anarchocommuniste

Et si la vérité, même lorsqu’elle prétend décrire le réel, ne pouvait jamais se séparer des rapports de pouvoir qui la rendent audible ?Contre la vérité devenue domination, il faut peut-être unir Marx, Foucault, Clastres, Spinoza et Albert Thierry dans une politique de la non-parvenue : désaccumuler, désarmer, dé-hiérarchiser, refaire société. #Anarchism #Communism #Marxism #Foucault #Degrowth…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/07/la-volonte-de-non-parvenir-vers-une-utopie-anarchocommuniste/

La volonté de non-parvenir : vers une utopie anarchocommuniste

Et si la vérité, même lorsqu’elle prétend décrire le réel, ne pouvait jamais se séparer des rapports de pouvoir qui la rendent audible ?Contre la vérité devenue domination, il faut peut-être unir Marx, Foucault, Clastres, Spinoza et Albert Thierry dans une politique de la non-parvenue : désaccumuler, désarmer, dé-hiérarchiser, refaire société. #Anarchism #Communism #Marxism #Foucault #Degrowth…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/07/la-volonte-de-non-parvenir-vers-une-utopie-anarchocommuniste/

La volonté de non-parvenir : vers une utopie anarchocommuniste

Et si la vérité, même lorsqu’elle prétend décrire le réel, ne pouvait jamais se séparer des rapports de pouvoir qui la rendent audible ?Contre la vérité devenue domination, il faut peut-être unir Marx, Foucault, Clastres, Spinoza et Albert Thierry dans une politique de la non-parvenue : désaccumuler, désarmer, dé-hiérarchiser, refaire société. #Anarchism #Communism #Marxism #Foucault #Degrowth…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/07/la-volonte-de-non-parvenir-vers-une-utopie-anarchocommuniste/

La volonté de non-parvenir : vers une utopie anarchocommuniste

Et si la vérité, même lorsqu’elle prétend décrire le réel, ne pouvait jamais se séparer des rapports de pouvoir qui la rendent audible ?Contre la vérité devenue domination, il faut peut-être unir Marx, Foucault, Clastres, Spinoza et Albert Thierry dans une politique de la non-parvenue : désaccumuler, désarmer, dé-hiérarchiser, refaire société. #Anarchism #Communism #Marxism #Foucault #Degrowth…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/07/la-volonte-de-non-parvenir-vers-une-utopie-anarchocommuniste/

Démocratiser la production : surplus, décroissance et planification

La démocratie ne devrait pas seulement décider de la loi : elle devrait décider de ce que nous produisons, en quelles quantités, avec quels moyens et pour quels besoins. Sans contrôle collectif des moyens de production, le surplus continue d’alimenter l’accumulation capitaliste, la croissance matérielle et le dérèglement climatique. #Degrowth #Marxism #DemocraticPlanning #PoliticalEconomy…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/07/democratiser-la-production-surplus-decroissance-et-planification/

Démocratiser la production : surplus, décroissance et planification

La démocratie ne devrait pas seulement décider de la loi : elle devrait décider de ce que nous produisons, en quelles quantités, avec quels moyens et pour quels besoins. Sans contrôle collectif des moyens de production, le surplus continue d’alimenter l’accumulation capitaliste, la croissance matérielle et le dérèglement climatique. #Degrowth #Marxism #DemocraticPlanning #PoliticalEconomy…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/07/democratiser-la-production-surplus-decroissance-et-planification/

Démocratiser la production : surplus, décroissance et planification

La démocratie ne devrait pas seulement décider de la loi : elle devrait décider de ce que nous produisons, en quelles quantités, avec quels moyens et pour quels besoins. Sans contrôle collectif des moyens de production, le surplus continue d’alimenter l’accumulation capitaliste, la croissance matérielle et le dérèglement climatique. #Degrowth #Marxism #DemocraticPlanning #PoliticalEconomy…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/07/democratiser-la-production-surplus-decroissance-et-planification/

https://jacobin.com/2026/07/marx-neoclassical-economics-ai-labor

Could a #Marxist with better theoretical chops than me walk through this Jacobin article about AI, Marx's labour theory of value, and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall? Because I don't understand it. Admittedly, I have yet to dive into the tome that is Capital Vol I. But the argument put forth seems to rest on odd assumptions.

In a nutshell, I think the assumption that (v), and thus (s), are small for AI is false.

=============================

>At first, the implications for Karl Marx’s labor theory of value seem bad or in contradiction with the facts or our expectations. AI implies the introduction of extremely capital-intensive techniques of production or, to use Marxist terminology, of processes with a very high organic composition of capital. In other words, AI implies a very high c/v ratio. That is the ratio of constant capital (c) to capital engaged to hire labor (v). If the presence of labor is small and, perhaps in cases of fully automated production, close to zero, the surplus value produced by labor must also be small or close to zero. Regardless of how high the rate of exploitation is, a very small v implies a very small s (surplus value).
>
>We thus establish that the rate of profit [s/(c+v)] must also be very small

Why are we assuming that (v) is low here? AI fundamentally doesn't work without a vast corpus of data produced by labourers. Indeed the whole assumption made later, that folks expect rates of profit to be high for AI:

>So will AI bring capitalism to an end? This does not seem to square well with the facts and expectations of not smaller, but higher, rates of profits that would come from the introduction of AI.

rests entirely on capital being permitted to use that data free-of-charge. AI isn't profitable if labour is actually paid for the data it creates.

>But now, allow that total automatization of production in this sector creates a demand for production of goods and services such that only live human labor can do, or where live human labor is superior to AI: think of caring activities, sports, nursing, top cooking skills, coach training, bartending, creative writing, and a multitude of other tasks...

Why are we allowing that? It is not at all a given that automatization of some human activities will necessarily create demand for those activities that cannot be automated. Those activities already have demand, and no argument is made for how their demand will suddenly increase. Presumably, the author is intending to say that *new* sectors previously nonexistent will come into being? If so, what kinds?

Ultimately, I think this is conflating mechanization and automation. Mechanization optimizes labour. Automation gets rid of it entirely. They're fundamentally different phenomena. Mechanization permits reallocation of labour. Automation fundamentally cannot. (An aside: the transformation of mechanization, of quantitatively lowering per-unit labour needs, into automation, of having that lowering hit zero, certainly rings "transformation of quantity into quality" #DialeticalMaterialism bells in my head).

And if we really do think we're approaching an automation utopia --- I don't think that we are --- then surely that *would* be the material basis for a transformation from capitalism to socialism (or even communism), as production and allocation of wealth have been entirely automated!

=============================

Also:

>But as we know, in capitalism, commodities and services are not sold at labor values but at the prices of production that equalize profit rates in capital- and labor-intensive sectors (i.e., in sectors with different organic compositions of capital). This in turn means that the amount of profit in the automated sector will, in equilibrium, be proportional to the (huge) amount of capital employed in the automated sector. Therefore, our automated sector’s profit will not be negligible as it seemed at first when we looked at it in isolation and assumed that the entire economy is composed of it only. On the contrary, the profit rate may go up because replacement of labor in one sector is accompanied by the creation of more labor-intensive processes of production elsewhere.

Uh... what? That second sentence is not at all justified by the first, is it? The first sentence speaks of *rates* of profit, and how those rates of profit for different sectors of the economy all tend toward an equilibrium value over time, presumably as capital continually re-allocates itself to seek higher rates of profit. The second sentence speaks of profit *itself* and, further, asserts that a particular sector's profit is proportional to its own capital investments (c), something that is not stated by the first sentence. Ultimately, if (v) is truly close to zero for the capital-intensive AI sector, then the rate of profit must necessarily be close to zero, and the shifts of the rates of profit for the capital-intensive AI sector and labour-intensive sector towards an equilibrium point can only go one way: away from the capital-intensive AI sector and towards the labour-intensive sector. In this model --- assuming (v) (and thus [s]) for AI is indeed low --- AI craters in spectacular fashion, does it not?

I'm so confused :(

#socialism #communism #marxism

https://jacobin.com/2026/07/marx-neoclassical-economics-ai-labor

Could a #Marxist with better theoretical chops than me walk through this Jacobin article about AI, Marx's labour theory of value, and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall? Because I don't understand it. Admittedly, I have yet to dive into the tome that is Capital Vol I. But the argument put forth seems to rest on odd assumptions.

In a nutshell, I think the assumption that (v), and thus (s), are small for AI is false.

=============================

>At first, the implications for Karl Marx’s labor theory of value seem bad or in contradiction with the facts or our expectations. AI implies the introduction of extremely capital-intensive techniques of production or, to use Marxist terminology, of processes with a very high organic composition of capital. In other words, AI implies a very high c/v ratio. That is the ratio of constant capital (c) to capital engaged to hire labor (v). If the presence of labor is small and, perhaps in cases of fully automated production, close to zero, the surplus value produced by labor must also be small or close to zero. Regardless of how high the rate of exploitation is, a very small v implies a very small s (surplus value).
>
>We thus establish that the rate of profit [s/(c+v)] must also be very small

Why are we assuming that (v) is low here? AI fundamentally doesn't work without a vast corpus of data produced by labourers. Indeed the whole assumption made later, that folks expect rates of profit to be high for AI:

>So will AI bring capitalism to an end? This does not seem to square well with the facts and expectations of not smaller, but higher, rates of profits that would come from the introduction of AI.

rests entirely on capital being permitted to use that data free-of-charge. AI isn't profitable if labour is actually paid for the data it creates.

>But now, allow that total automatization of production in this sector creates a demand for production of goods and services such that only live human labor can do, or where live human labor is superior to AI: think of caring activities, sports, nursing, top cooking skills, coach training, bartending, creative writing, and a multitude of other tasks...

Why are we allowing that? It is not at all a given that automatization of some human activities will necessarily create demand for those activities that cannot be automated. Those activities already have demand, and no argument is made for how their demand will suddenly increase. Presumably, the author is intending to say that *new* sectors previously nonexistent will come into being? If so, what kinds?

Ultimately, I think this is conflating mechanization and automation. Mechanization optimizes labour. Automation gets rid of it entirely. They're fundamentally different phenomena. Mechanization permits reallocation of labour. Automation fundamentally cannot. (An aside: the transformation of mechanization, of quantitatively lowering per-unit labour needs, into automation, of having that lowering hit zero, certainly rings "transformation of quantity into quality" #DialeticalMaterialism bells in my head).

And if we really do think we're approaching an automation utopia --- I don't think that we are --- then surely that *would* be the material basis for a transformation from capitalism to socialism (or even communism), as production and allocation of wealth have been entirely automated!

=============================

Also:

>But as we know, in capitalism, commodities and services are not sold at labor values but at the prices of production that equalize profit rates in capital- and labor-intensive sectors (i.e., in sectors with different organic compositions of capital). This in turn means that the amount of profit in the automated sector will, in equilibrium, be proportional to the (huge) amount of capital employed in the automated sector. Therefore, our automated sector’s profit will not be negligible as it seemed at first when we looked at it in isolation and assumed that the entire economy is composed of it only. On the contrary, the profit rate may go up because replacement of labor in one sector is accompanied by the creation of more labor-intensive processes of production elsewhere.

Uh... what? That second sentence is not at all justified by the first, is it? The first sentence speaks of *rates* of profit, and how those rates of profit for different sectors of the economy all tend toward an equilibrium value over time, presumably as capital continually re-allocates itself to seek higher rates of profit. The second sentence speaks of profit *itself* and, further, asserts that a particular sector's profit is proportional to its own capital investments (c), something that is not stated by the first sentence. Ultimately, if (v) is truly close to zero for the capital-intensive AI sector, then the rate of profit must necessarily be close to zero, and the shifts of the rates of profit for the capital-intensive AI sector and labour-intensive sector towards an equilibrium point can only go one way: away from the capital-intensive AI sector and towards the labour-intensive sector. In this model --- assuming (v) (and thus [s]) for AI is indeed low --- AI craters in spectacular fashion, does it not?

I'm so confused :(

#socialism #communism #marxism

https://jacobin.com/2026/07/marx-neoclassical-economics-ai-labor

Could a #Marxist with better theoretical chops than me walk through this Jacobin article about AI, Marx's labour theory of value, and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall? Because I don't understand it. Admittedly, I have yet to dive into the tome that is Capital Vol I. But the argument put forth seems to rest on odd assumptions.

In a nutshell, I think the assumption that (v), and thus (s), are small for AI is false.

=============================

>At first, the implications for Karl Marx’s labor theory of value seem bad or in contradiction with the facts or our expectations. AI implies the introduction of extremely capital-intensive techniques of production or, to use Marxist terminology, of processes with a very high organic composition of capital. In other words, AI implies a very high c/v ratio. That is the ratio of constant capital (c) to capital engaged to hire labor (v). If the presence of labor is small and, perhaps in cases of fully automated production, close to zero, the surplus value produced by labor must also be small or close to zero. Regardless of how high the rate of exploitation is, a very small v implies a very small s (surplus value).
>
>We thus establish that the rate of profit [s/(c+v)] must also be very small

Why are we assuming that (v) is low here? AI fundamentally doesn't work without a vast corpus of data produced by labourers. Indeed the whole assumption made later, that folks expect rates of profit to be high for AI:

>So will AI bring capitalism to an end? This does not seem to square well with the facts and expectations of not smaller, but higher, rates of profits that would come from the introduction of AI.

rests entirely on capital being permitted to use that data free-of-charge. AI isn't profitable if labour is actually paid for the data it creates.

>But now, allow that total automatization of production in this sector creates a demand for production of goods and services such that only live human labor can do, or where live human labor is superior to AI: think of caring activities, sports, nursing, top cooking skills, coach training, bartending, creative writing, and a multitude of other tasks...

Why are we allowing that? It is not at all a given that automatization of some human activities will necessarily create demand for those activities that cannot be automated. Those activities already have demand, and no argument is made for how their demand will suddenly increase. Presumably, the author is intending to say that *new* sectors previously nonexistent will come into being? If so, what kinds?

Ultimately, I think this is conflating mechanization and automation. Mechanization optimizes labour. Automation gets rid of it entirely. They're fundamentally different phenomena. Mechanization permits reallocation of labour. Automation fundamentally cannot. (An aside: the transformation of mechanization, of quantitatively lowering per-unit labour needs, into automation, of having that lowering hit zero, certainly rings "transformation of quantity into quality" #DialeticalMaterialism bells in my head).

And if we really do think we're approaching an automation utopia --- I don't think that we are --- then surely that *would* be the material basis for a transformation from capitalism to socialism (or even communism), as production and allocation of wealth have been entirely automated!

=============================

Also:

>But as we know, in capitalism, commodities and services are not sold at labor values but at the prices of production that equalize profit rates in capital- and labor-intensive sectors (i.e., in sectors with different organic compositions of capital). This in turn means that the amount of profit in the automated sector will, in equilibrium, be proportional to the (huge) amount of capital employed in the automated sector. Therefore, our automated sector’s profit will not be negligible as it seemed at first when we looked at it in isolation and assumed that the entire economy is composed of it only. On the contrary, the profit rate may go up because replacement of labor in one sector is accompanied by the creation of more labor-intensive processes of production elsewhere.

Uh... what? That second sentence is not at all justified by the first, is it? The first sentence speaks of *rates* of profit, and how those rates of profit for different sectors of the economy all tend toward an equilibrium value over time, presumably as capital continually re-allocates itself to seek higher rates of profit. The second sentence speaks of profit *itself* and, further, asserts that a particular sector's profit is proportional to its own capital investments (c), something that is not stated by the first sentence. Ultimately, if (v) is truly close to zero for the capital-intensive AI sector, then the rate of profit must necessarily be close to zero, and the shifts of the rates of profit for the capital-intensive AI sector and labour-intensive sector towards an equilibrium point can only go one way: away from the capital-intensive AI sector and towards the labour-intensive sector. In this model --- assuming (v) (and thus [s]) for AI is indeed low --- AI craters in spectacular fashion, does it not?

I'm so confused :(

#socialism #communism #marxism

https://jacobin.com/2026/07/marx-neoclassical-economics-ai-labor

Could a #Marxist with better theoretical chops than me walk through this Jacobin article about AI, Marx's labour theory of value, and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall? Because I don't understand it. Admittedly, I have yet to dive into the tome that is Capital Vol I. But the argument put forth seems to rest on odd assumptions.

In a nutshell, I think the assumption that (v), and thus (s), are small for AI is false.

=============================

>At first, the implications for Karl Marx’s labor theory of value seem bad or in contradiction with the facts or our expectations. AI implies the introduction of extremely capital-intensive techniques of production or, to use Marxist terminology, of processes with a very high organic composition of capital. In other words, AI implies a very high c/v ratio. That is the ratio of constant capital (c) to capital engaged to hire labor (v). If the presence of labor is small and, perhaps in cases of fully automated production, close to zero, the surplus value produced by labor must also be small or close to zero. Regardless of how high the rate of exploitation is, a very small v implies a very small s (surplus value).
>
>We thus establish that the rate of profit [s/(c+v)] must also be very small

Why are we assuming that (v) is low here? AI fundamentally doesn't work without a vast corpus of data produced by labourers. Indeed the whole assumption made later, that folks expect rates of profit to be high for AI:

>So will AI bring capitalism to an end? This does not seem to square well with the facts and expectations of not smaller, but higher, rates of profits that would come from the introduction of AI.

rests entirely on capital being permitted to use that data free-of-charge. AI isn't profitable if labour is actually paid for the data it creates.

>But now, allow that total automatization of production in this sector creates a demand for production of goods and services such that only live human labor can do, or where live human labor is superior to AI: think of caring activities, sports, nursing, top cooking skills, coach training, bartending, creative writing, and a multitude of other tasks...

Why are we allowing that? It is not at all a given that automatization of some human activities will necessarily create demand for those activities that cannot be automated. Those activities already have demand, and no argument is made for how their demand will suddenly increase. Presumably, the author is intending to say that *new* sectors previously nonexistent will come into being? If so, what kinds?

Ultimately, I think this is conflating mechanization and automation. Mechanization optimizes labour. Automation gets rid of it entirely. They're fundamentally different phenomena. Mechanization permits reallocation of labour. Automation fundamentally cannot. (An aside: the transformation of mechanization, of quantitatively lowering per-unit labour needs, into automation, of having that lowering hit zero, certainly rings "transformation of quantity into quality" #DialeticalMaterialism bells in my head).

And if we really do think we're approaching an automation utopia --- I don't think that we are --- then surely that *would* be the material basis for a transformation from capitalism to socialism (or even communism), as production and allocation of wealth have been entirely automated!

=============================

Also:

>But as we know, in capitalism, commodities and services are not sold at labor values but at the prices of production that equalize profit rates in capital- and labor-intensive sectors (i.e., in sectors with different organic compositions of capital). This in turn means that the amount of profit in the automated sector will, in equilibrium, be proportional to the (huge) amount of capital employed in the automated sector. Therefore, our automated sector’s profit will not be negligible as it seemed at first when we looked at it in isolation and assumed that the entire economy is composed of it only. On the contrary, the profit rate may go up because replacement of labor in one sector is accompanied by the creation of more labor-intensive processes of production elsewhere.

Uh... what? That second sentence is not at all justified by the first, is it? The first sentence speaks of *rates* of profit, and how those rates of profit for different sectors of the economy all tend toward an equilibrium value over time, presumably as capital continually re-allocates itself to seek higher rates of profit. The second sentence speaks of profit *itself* and, further, asserts that a particular sector's profit is proportional to its own capital investments (c), something that is not stated by the first sentence. Ultimately, if (v) is truly close to zero for the capital-intensive AI sector, then the rate of profit must necessarily be close to zero, and the shifts of the rates of profit for the capital-intensive AI sector and labour-intensive sector towards an equilibrium point can only go one way: away from the capital-intensive AI sector and towards the labour-intensive sector. In this model --- assuming (v) (and thus [s]) for AI is indeed low --- AI craters in spectacular fashion, does it not?

I'm so confused :(

#socialism #communism #marxism

https://jacobin.com/2026/07/marx-neoclassical-economics-ai-labor

Could a #Marxist with better theoretical chops than me walk through this Jacobin article about AI, Marx's labour theory of value, and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall? Because I don't understand it. Admittedly, I have yet to dive into the tome that is Capital Vol I. But the argument put forth seems to rest on odd assumptions.

In a nutshell, I think the assumption that (v), and thus (s), are small for AI is false.

=============================

>At first, the implications for Karl Marx’s labor theory of value seem bad or in contradiction with the facts or our expectations. AI implies the introduction of extremely capital-intensive techniques of production or, to use Marxist terminology, of processes with a very high organic composition of capital. In other words, AI implies a very high c/v ratio. That is the ratio of constant capital (c) to capital engaged to hire labor (v). If the presence of labor is small and, perhaps in cases of fully automated production, close to zero, the surplus value produced by labor must also be small or close to zero. Regardless of how high the rate of exploitation is, a very small v implies a very small s (surplus value).
>
>We thus establish that the rate of profit [s/(c+v)] must also be very small

Why are we assuming that (v) is low here? AI fundamentally doesn't work without a vast corpus of data produced by labourers. Indeed the whole assumption made later, that folks expect rates of profit to be high for AI:

>So will AI bring capitalism to an end? This does not seem to square well with the facts and expectations of not smaller, but higher, rates of profits that would come from the introduction of AI.

rests entirely on capital being permitted to use that data free-of-charge. AI isn't profitable if labour is actually paid for the data it creates.

>But now, allow that total automatization of production in this sector creates a demand for production of goods and services such that only live human labor can do, or where live human labor is superior to AI: think of caring activities, sports, nursing, top cooking skills, coach training, bartending, creative writing, and a multitude of other tasks...

Why are we allowing that? It is not at all a given that automatization of some human activities will necessarily create demand for those activities that cannot be automated. Those activities already have demand, and no argument is made for how their demand will suddenly increase. Presumably, the author is intending to say that *new* sectors previously nonexistent will come into being? If so, what kinds?

Ultimately, I think this is conflating mechanization and automation. Mechanization optimizes labour. Automation gets rid of it entirely. They're fundamentally different phenomena. Mechanization permits reallocation of labour. Automation fundamentally cannot. (An aside: the transformation of mechanization, of quantitatively lowering per-unit labour needs, into automation, of having that lowering hit zero, certainly rings "transformation of quantity into quality" #DialeticalMaterialism bells in my head).

And if we really do think we're approaching an automation utopia --- I don't think that we are --- then surely that *would* be the material basis for a transformation from capitalism to socialism (or even communism), as production and allocation of wealth have been entirely automated!

=============================

Also:

>But as we know, in capitalism, commodities and services are not sold at labor values but at the prices of production that equalize profit rates in capital- and labor-intensive sectors (i.e., in sectors with different organic compositions of capital). This in turn means that the amount of profit in the automated sector will, in equilibrium, be proportional to the (huge) amount of capital employed in the automated sector. Therefore, our automated sector’s profit will not be negligible as it seemed at first when we looked at it in isolation and assumed that the entire economy is composed of it only. On the contrary, the profit rate may go up because replacement of labor in one sector is accompanied by the creation of more labor-intensive processes of production elsewhere.

Uh... what? That second sentence is not at all justified by the first, is it? The first sentence speaks of *rates* of profit, and how those rates of profit for different sectors of the economy all tend toward an equilibrium value over time, presumably as capital continually re-allocates itself to seek higher rates of profit. The second sentence speaks of profit *itself* and, further, asserts that a particular sector's profit is proportional to its own capital investments (c), something that is not stated by the first sentence. Ultimately, if (v) is truly close to zero for the capital-intensive AI sector, then the rate of profit must necessarily be close to zero, and the shifts of the rates of profit for the capital-intensive AI sector and labour-intensive sector towards an equilibrium point can only go one way: away from the capital-intensive AI sector and towards the labour-intensive sector. In this model --- assuming (v) (and thus [s]) for AI is indeed low --- AI craters in spectacular fashion, does it not?

I'm so confused :(

#socialism #communism #marxism

the liberal is part of the oppressor class
#anarchism #marxism #memes #politics #history #economics

the liberal is part of the oppressor class
#anarchism #marxism #memes #politics #history #economics

the liberal is part of the oppressor class
#anarchism #marxism #memes #politics #history #economics

the liberal is part of the oppressor class
#anarchism #marxism #memes #politics #history #economics

the liberal is part of the oppressor class
#anarchism #marxism #memes #politics #history #economics

Dépense contre accumulation : que faire du surplus ?

La consommation n’est qu’un moment du processus économique. La question décisive est celle de l’allocation du surplus : le réinvestir dans une croissance sans fin, ou le soustraire à l’accumulation pour financer les besoins, les solidarités, les soins et la fête ?
#Degrowth #Marxism #PoliticalEconomy #Socialism #Finance #Bataille

On présente souvent la consommation comme le moteur de l’économie. C’est vrai...

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/06/depense-contre-accumulation-que-faire-du-surplus/

Dépense contre accumulation : que faire du surplus ?

La consommation n’est qu’un moment du processus économique. La question décisive est celle de l’allocation du surplus : le réinvestir dans une croissance sans fin, ou le soustraire à l’accumulation pour financer les besoins, les solidarités, les soins et la fête ?
#Degrowth #Marxism #PoliticalEconomy #Socialism #Finance #Bataille

On présente souvent la consommation comme le moteur de l’économie. C’est vrai...

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/06/depense-contre-accumulation-que-faire-du-surplus/

Dépense contre accumulation : que faire du surplus ?

La consommation n’est qu’un moment du processus économique. La question décisive est celle de l’allocation du surplus : le réinvestir dans une croissance sans fin, ou le soustraire à l’accumulation pour financer les besoins, les solidarités, les soins et la fête ?
#Degrowth #Marxism #PoliticalEconomy #Socialism #Finance #Bataille

On présente souvent la consommation comme le moteur de l’économie. C’est vrai...

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/06/depense-contre-accumulation-que-faire-du-surplus/

Dépense contre accumulation : que faire du surplus ?

La consommation n’est qu’un moment du processus économique. La question décisive est celle de l’allocation du surplus : le réinvestir dans une croissance sans fin, ou le soustraire à l’accumulation pour financer les besoins, les solidarités, les soins et la fête ?
#Degrowth #Marxism #PoliticalEconomy #Socialism #Finance #Bataille

On présente souvent la consommation comme le moteur de l’économie. C’est vrai...

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/06/depense-contre-accumulation-que-faire-du-surplus/