Personally I think it’s silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience… Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I’ve been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism… Maybe I am just tripping idk

  • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    51·
    1 month ago

    No, physicalism is absolutely not dialectical. You’re completely discarding activity. Marx didn’t uncover the mechanics of money by studying gold, he studied the process of commodity exchange!

        • itsPina [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
          33·
          1 month ago

          The only thing I know about commodities is I am effectively one right now…

          Google AI:

          The General Formula of Capital: M-C-M’ Marx introduces the general formula for capital as M-C-M’.

          M (Money): The capitalist begins with a sum of money (M).
C (Commodities): The money is used to purchase specific commodities (C), which include the means of production (raw materials, machinery, etc.) and labor-power (L). This is represented as M-C(MP + L).
M' (More Money): These commodities are then used in the process of production to create new commodities (C') of greater value, which are then sold for a larger sum of money (M'). M' is greater than the initial M (M' > M), with the difference (M' - M) being the surplus value or profit.

          There aint no fucking way Marx was like “Money plus Commodities Plus More Money = capitalism” LOL

          • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
            6·
            1 month ago

            That is what Marx formulated, yes. And that is the formula for what capitalist exchange is, and it is a pretty ground-breaking truth, so ground breaking that it feels like basic common sense, but nobody ever actually described this historical phenomena that way before him.

            Traditional commodity money exchange under feudalism was C-M-C with the feudal lord being the primary consumer of commodities. M-C-M means that there is effectively no limit to the consumption, as it is driven not by an end goal of commodity attainment, but by the infinite accumulation of money itself.

            • itsPina [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
              2·
              1 month ago

              mmm I love having smarter people around than I.

              I have not read Vol 2 yet… I felt very satisfied with Vol 1 and use it constantly to dunk on libs on reddit… maybe i should read the rest. Or not, theres plenty of other bullshit to read.

                • itsPina [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
                  2·
                  1 month ago

                  shits too long… marx was cookin with the manifesto. my baby brain can wrap around that. Volume 1 is already more information than the average econ 101 course covers in the US.

                  I instead will simply recreate all of marx’s texts through my lived experience, as his words are pretty damn true so I dont even need to read that shit to experience it.

                  • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
                    6·
                    1 month ago

                    Ehhhh … the manifesto was a pretty slapdash editorial work for a magazine. Definitely a decent summary, but idk if it actually captures the nuances that exist within Marxist theory. Primary reliance on it tends towards a kind of vulgar Marxism, imo.

                    Without reading it, how would you know you are experiencing it? Feels abit backwards imo. For me, Marxism allowed me to better articulate my experience of the world around me. It’s not about ‘recreating Marx through my lived experience’, it’s about utilizing Marxist systemic thought and heuristic practice to better explain my lived experience, which requires me to actually read theory.