You're viewing a single thread.
Are these people really that ignorant?
LMFAO these people think gold and diamonds just spawn on the surface like Monster Hunter resource gathering points and all you have to do is pick them up
what is mining? sounds like Tankie Misinformation to me lol
Those people are deeply unserious
You have to say "those people are deeply unserious in minecraft" or it is a call to violence
Pretty sure we've been over this, "in minecraft" is a
ploy so they can ctrl+f easier. Mix up the videogame from time to time.Those people are deeply unserious in guilty gear: strive.
Calling for a mixup, Chipp main detected
A tweet that absolutely lives rent free in my head
I wonder if there’s some sort of monopoly on diamonds artificially inflating their price. Does Marx talk about supply/demand and explain that this can alter prices but not value? I wonder.
Anyways, this person thinking it takes no time/effort to “produce” diamonds/gold is funny (esp. with the case of lab diamonds).
Marx does talk about precious/luxury goods in Capital volume 1 actually. If I remember right he specifically talks about pearls and paintings. But if I remember right he doesn't define paintings as commodities, since their value can't be reproduced through the same methods, since the value comes from the rarity associated with the artist. He says something similar about pearls too.
But that poster is completely wrong. Gold doesn't take labor to mine out of the ground? Diamonds don't take labor to mine or synthesize? What
Literally in the first chapter of Capital Volume 1:
"Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks."
I like that Marx mentions diamonds. Lab grown diamonds are around a third the price of mined diamonds, specifically because there are less people performing labor on them. I believe most of the cost of lab diamonds comes from the cutting of it, since diamonds still take specialized equipment to cut.
Yeah, he really mentions how diamonds would be "the price of a brick" and industrial diamonds pretty much are. But jewelry diamonds are still expensive, and the diamond industry is a great way to introduce people to Marxist concepts of value.
Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. The above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.
It feels like a weird joke. Like this is how I would do a parody of someone who refuses to read Capital. I'd make statements exactly like this, mentioning things that Marx explicitly mentioned in the first chapter as a joke.