5 ms·

>>Value for who? Value as determined by who? Value for us, real people who have needs. We decide what we want to buy and not some apparatchik on their pedestal

by nec4b 1mo ago

>>Value for who? Value as determined by who? Value for us, real people who have needs. We decide what we want to buy and not some apparatchik on their pedestal. >>Rivers here are drying out. Glaciers are melting. Forests are burning. As if this never happened before capitalism?

vrganj 1mo ago
Who is "us"? Because in capitalism, only people with capital get to decide what has value. The values of the poor are not reflected. The values of the indigenous are not reflected. The values of the non-capitalist are not reflected. The value of the unborn is not reflected. The value of nature is not reflected. The glacier doesn't participate in the market and neither does the river. Are they without value? > As if this never happened before capitalism? That's correct. Look at the graph I posted above, you'll notice that things weren't always this hot. Before capitalism they sure weren't.
- nec4b 1mo ago
  No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most, because the capitalist first and foremost need to provide value to us. I'm not sure what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? Isn't it evident people assign great value to natural resources. The world is a bit older then 120 years in your graph. There were a lot of natural disasters that wiped quite a lot of living beings from the planet.
  - vrganj 1mo ago
    > No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most That is just straight up not true. The tribal elder in the Amazon, who's forest capitalists are burning down never got asked how he defines value. The child not yet born was never asked if it's atmosphere should be heated up for data centers. Neither was the fish in the river or the river itself for that matter. > what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? I'm not sure what's unclear. The glacier melts as a result of somebody who's not the glacier deciding "value" on a market. In reality, the market doesn't decide value. Value is not price. The market decides power structures and violence distribution. The glacier has a value completely separate from the market, and not derived from it. > There were a lot of natural disasters Why are we pivoting to natural disasters now?
    - nec4b 1mo ago
      How exactly can you ask an unborn child, a river or a glacier what it wants? Did the Yugoslav dictator ask Kosovars what they want before violently oppressing them?
      - vrganj 1mo ago
        That is precisely the point - you can't! I'm glad we got to this shared understanding in the end. So I'd appreciate if we stopped pretending the market did, when it fails to account for anything that's not somebody with money. How could it possibly assign "value" that way?
        nec4b 1mo ago
        So which economical system enables us to talk to inanimate objects or unborn babies, since you think this is a fault of capitalism? You have a deep misunderstanding of markets and capitalism!

by nec4b 1mo ago

vrganj 1mo ago

Who is "us"? Because in capitalism, only people with capital get to decide what has value. The values of the poor are not reflected. The values of the indigenous are not reflected. The values of the non-capitalist are not reflected. The value of the unborn is not reflected. The value of nature is not reflected. The glacier doesn't participate in the market and neither does the river. Are they without value? > As if this never happened before capitalism? That's correct. Look at the graph I posted above, you'll notice that things weren't always this hot. Before capitalism they sure weren't.

nec4b 1mo ago
No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most, because the capitalist first and foremost need to provide value to us. I'm not sure what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? Isn't it evident people assign great value to natural resources. The world is a bit older then 120 years in your graph. There were a lot of natural disasters that wiped quite a lot of living beings from the planet.
- vrganj 1mo ago
  > No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most That is just straight up not true. The tribal elder in the Amazon, who's forest capitalists are burning down never got asked how he defines value. The child not yet born was never asked if it's atmosphere should be heated up for data centers. Neither was the fish in the river or the river itself for that matter. > what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? I'm not sure what's unclear. The glacier melts as a result of somebody who's not the glacier deciding "value" on a market. In reality, the market doesn't decide value. Value is not price. The market decides power structures and violence distribution. The glacier has a value completely separate from the market, and not derived from it. > There were a lot of natural disasters Why are we pivoting to natural disasters now?
  - nec4b 1mo ago
    How exactly can you ask an unborn child, a river or a glacier what it wants? Did the Yugoslav dictator ask Kosovars what they want before violently oppressing them?
    - vrganj 1mo ago
      That is precisely the point - you can't! I'm glad we got to this shared understanding in the end. So I'd appreciate if we stopped pretending the market did, when it fails to account for anything that's not somebody with money. How could it possibly assign "value" that way?
      - nec4b 1mo ago
        So which economical system enables us to talk to inanimate objects or unborn babies, since you think this is a fault of capitalism? You have a deep misunderstanding of markets and capitalism!