@Black_Mald_Futures@hexbear.net I just wanted to add something else to with my siblings, mainly my sibling s.o threatening my dad, since this bothering me or why I seem defensive about this

I think my sibling partner threatening to hurt him and beat him up is way over the line. They have every right to cut him out, but I don’t think it’s right for my sibling partner to want to come here and “raise hell” and want to beat him up and everything. Last time this happened was like, last year when my mom was dying and I got home after helping my mom. I overheard my sibling s.o on the phone threatening my dad if he contacted my sibling again.

Besides that, I do not trust my siblings, because me and them have never got along. But I def. dont trust them due to other things. And them threatening him is just not okay. Maybe my relationship with my dad is harmful but I don’t like my siblings s.o threatening him again. Technically they’re my half siblings with different dads, and my half sibling in this is like a decade older than me.

but like my dad drunkingly sent my sibling this meme dog photo today. My dad shown it to me earlier before we went grocery shopping. nothing bad, and like why hasn’t my sibling blocked his number? and is that really worth threatening to come here and beat him up? or hurt him or something?

I don’t know if I need to spoiler tag/cw this but my dad was showing me a text message of one of my siblings s.o threatening to hurt him again if he texted one of my siblings again. It’s really upsetting. I hate my siblings.

That’s a good point, I neglected to connected it back to the circuit.

They do, but I end up avoiding getting stuff delivered as best as I can because my dad gets freaked out if someone he doesn’t know is suddenly in the front yard. Last time I told him someone was coming by, he forgot about it, and when the person came by, my dad was like, acting extremely paranoid and everything. And I’d just rather not deal with that

Yea! It was surprisingly short. It feels like Marx hyped vol 3 somewhat with how many times how he said he will discuss things in vol 3, so it’s nice to finally get around to finishing vol 2 and getting to where like he really wants to elaborate more on stuff in vol 3.

Okay, sorry for being aggressive and yea it def. isn’t the same

I think you’re missing my point. I’m not arguing value isn’t produced by the workers. I’m more saying if you think that surplus value is gonna go back into the workers that made it, that not entirely correct. Since as Marx points out, there would be deductions made and such like for the total working class, but someone making surplus-value isn’t gonna get 100% of it back. Also to point something else out. Nature is a source of value to just as much as labor is.

I don’t know if you have read Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme, but if not I want to quote this part that feels relevant to what your saying. Mainly just that even under a socialist state, the value produced by the worker isn’t gonna 100% belong to them.

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is “fair”? And is it not, in fact, the only “fair” distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about “fair” distribution?

To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase “fair distribution”, we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that “the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society.”

“To all members of society”? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the “undiminished” proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the “equal right” of all members of society?

But “all members of society” and “equal right” are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the “undiminished” Lassallean “proceeds of labor”.

Let us take, first of all, the words “proceeds of labor” in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the “undiminished” proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the “distribution” which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The “undiminished” proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the “diminished” proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

Just as the phrase of the “undiminished” proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the “proceeds of labor” disappear altogether.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase “proceeds of labor”, objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Hyacinths are really pretty

another volume done

Venting again about my dad, but I heard about 3x3 basketball and it seems kind of fun from the videos I saw. Anyways my dad loves sports and I thought like “hey maybe this is something we could bond on! since I kind of like this” and what happens? my dad just immediately shuts me down and like, thanks dad! sorry for trying to bond with you!

I had some trouble understanding this chapter, and I watched David Harvey video on this chapter as he covers the next one to, and it’s really interesting, esp. when he links this chapter to planned economies and talks more about like planned economies later on in the video like around an hour in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rSZo_aeuak

it’s just interesting to see him link this chapter and Marx’s schemas/illustrations to planned economies and that.

Just sad, I don’t want him to die.

I found this part really interesting, mainly contradictions being transferred to a wider sphere

Foreign trade could help out in either case: in the first case in order to convert commodities I held in the form of money into articles of consumption, and in the second case to dispose of the commodity surplus. But since foreign trade does not merely replace certain elements (also with regard to value), it only transfers the contradictions to a wider sphere and gives them greater latitude.

He tells me he fine. Maybe I’ll get the occasional he’s feeling sick. But he doesn’t really say how he doing. All I can do is sometimes take him at his word despite like, how he doesn’t seem fine. Especially with his cough of his that he had since october, that only been getting worse. Sometimes he does start talking about what to do if he ever dies, but I don’t know if it because he drunk or if there something else going, since he just doesn’t really tell me much.

I don’t know if he has fluid building up in his abdomen or not. He doesn’t like, talk much about his health stuff. If I ask, he says he’s fine or gives me the occasional spill that he mad at his doctor for telling him to stop drinking, or that his blood test for his liver stuff wasn’t good. Sometimes, he will say he feels sick. Only thing I can tell is his eyes, where there yellow. I can’t really tell if his skin is yellowing since he’s not white. There are times when he doesn’t sound fine, like last month or whenever it was, me and him went grocery shopping, it sounded like he was grunting in pain? Then there his cough that he had since last October, that like, only been getting worse. Sometimes it sounds like he coughing something up. But he just tells me he’s fine, despite not sounding fine or looking fine at times. Maybe I’m just losing my mind I don’t know. Also like lately he still been having blood pooling under his skin, that like comes and goes

I want to say that at least he is doing better unlike last year at the beginning/or the previous year before last. where like he was vomiting a lot and shaking a ton because he was hardly eating at all. Then also blacking out and falling down and hitting his head. I don’t know. He also like old to and really needs to stop drinking.