666PeaceKeepaGirl [any, she/her]

@ 666PeaceKeepaGirl @hexbear.net

Posts

2
Comments

30
Joined

6 yr. ago

6mo ago

What if instead of Mr Bean he was Mr Lean
Jump
666PeaceKeepaGirl [any, she/her] @hexbear.net 6mo ago
Lean Leanwood Bean

6mo ago

Kinda odd eh

666PeaceKeepaGirl [any, she/her] @hexbear.net 6mo ago

trump getting couped because he didn't do enough anti-white racism or fuck enough couches to satisfy the hillbilly elegistas

7mo ago

Tulsi Gabbard to slash US intelligence workforce by 40%

Jump

666PeaceKeepaGirl [any, she/her] @hexbear.net 7mo ago

that's 24% imho

7mo ago

Ah yes, Nelson Mandela, known for being a non-violent rebel leader

Jump

666PeaceKeepaGirl [any, she/her] @hexbear.net 7mo ago

These people heard the "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" quote and took it as a moral instruction to kill in batches of 1 million

7mo ago

Just starting Capital and this line made me wonder: what about art?

Jump

666PeaceKeepaGirl [any, she/her] @hexbear.net 7mo ago

"Value" in the strictly theoretical sense Marx is using here does not necessarily correspond to personal or political notions of what is "valuable." A use-value has "value" insofar as, and only insofar as, its production is "socially necessary" (meaning, a requisite part of the reproduction of the class relation - this will be a key idea if you get to volume II) and requires in the abstract an aliquot portion of the society's total available labour time to reproduce. So if you want to understand how art is valued, you have to understand the labor going into it and the consumption habits of those who purchase it. If the rich have little interest for the arts and the poor are desperate to express themselves but have little disposable income to consume art, then most art production will be in excess of social necessity and hence fetch little value in exchange. If a strong labor movement raises living standards in that same society, the value of art will rise with the needs of the society, which here are in proportion to the standing of the working class. If a cultural shift brings the wealthy to see art as a status symbol, or as an especially enjoyable route of luxury consumption, this too will raise the value of art, though in this case we might expect the gains to be highly concentrated among an elite tier of artists favored by the wealthy but not numerous class of patrons. In none of these cases is art necessarily better or worse, or more or less worthwhile a pursuit - more or less "valuable" in the common sense of the word. All that is relevant to value in the economic sense is who produces and how, and who consumes and to what extent. And while consumption habits do impart some sense of what the society considers "valuable" into the value of goods, they do so only through the distorted lenses of the lopsided class structure in one eye, and of abstract necessary labor time in the other.