#rubin Tumblr posts

  • Exploring the “value of commodities” as “in-itself”, “value form” as “for-itself", and “money” (in relation to “value”) as “in-and-for-itself” in terms of Hegel’s dialectical system. How does it resonate with Hegel to describe the essence/ content or substance of value as value in-itself?

    So, my question is mainly whether there is any “resonance” — particularly re Hegel — in describing the value of a commodity’s “Essence” (ala Chris Arthur) — Although I’m more comfortable using Rubin’s discussion of the content/ substance of value — as value in-itself.. and using both Rubin and Arthur’s description, the form of value as value “for-itself”..

    View Full
  • Now I will make a few more remarks; just take these as informal musings.

    I think that, according to Rubin, socially equalized labor is more general and can apply to pre-capitalist social forms while abstract labor is specific to capitalism. However, I don’t see the distinction between the two other than the fact that abstract labor rather than socially equalized labor is (overwhelmingly) used to describe the substance of value in capitalist societies. This may be above my pay grade but, for me, both seem to reflect an amount of socially necessary labor time that lurks behind exchanges in all social forms, but is not dominate/ fully developed until capitalism and neither guides production nor is necessarily a focus of accumulation in pre-capitalist societies.. If this is the case, the difference seems merely semantic to me..

    I’m amazed how perfect the citation (in Chap. 1; section 4 of Capital I): When Marx states that “..value appears IN PRACTICE” is he referring to the dominance of value as not only for “occasional” exchanges in pre-capitalist social forms but (in practice) the regulation of production as well as the impetus for accumulation in capitalism?

    I do not feel — and also don’t feel that Marx stated — that exchange is “always” regulated by socially necessary labor time. However, I feel there are instances where “socially equalized labor” — as the substance of value — was the center of gravity as measured by stones, “bars in the mind”, cattle, etc. Consequently, there was “value” before the emergence of capitalism and/ as the “value form”. Moreover, in my precious “propositions”, I assert that, opposed to capitalist societies, the value basis of exchange was weakened by exchanges based largely and more often on supply and demand as well as concrete labor/ craftsmanship, etc.

    Overall, I am thus asserting that there is a difference between value — which is present in all social forms and described by Marx’s “Law of Value”; and the value form — which is synonymous with capitalism and described by value form theory. (Perhaps for a later discussion: Is there a distinction between commodities — existing in pre-capitalist societies — and the commodity form — exclusive to capitalism?.)

    View Full
  • If you like to chat, look no further! #SeniorCat #Rubin is a friendly and very chatty #female #cat at the #BrooklynACC! Her number is #ID96767: She allows all handling! Stray Cat and skinny! She has hyperthyroidism, dental disease & emaciated! Rubin is a #greyandwhitetabby #grayandwhitetabby cat 🐈! Rubin the beautiful cat is available for adoption at the #NYCACC @nycacc shelter in #NYC! May be #euthanized at anytime! #seniorcatsofinstagram: #catsofinstagram: #petsofinstagram: #AllAboutSavingAnimals: #catlivesmatter: #seniorcatlivesmatter: #Video: #Image: GIF: #DeathRow: #CodeRed: #SaveMe: #ICare: #IWantToLive: #Adopt: #Foster: #Pledges: #Donations: #Rescue: #NewHopePartner: @mustlovecatsnyc @death_row_cats_nyc @nycurgentcats @atailoftwokittiesnyc @atailatatime @brooklynacccuties @brooklynanimalaction @brooklynbridgeanimals @shelterchic @happypawsrescuenj @happyhomesinc @nycatcoalition @nycteensforanimals @lindas.cats @catassistanceny @frankiesfelinefund @fuzzybuttrescue @tararescuescats @furrrfelinerescue @timberslegacy @theoddcatsanctuary @starting_over_animal_rescue_ @hunterdon.animal.rescue.center @southamptonanimalshelteradopt @hopewellrescue @littlewanderersnyc @tabbysplace @tabbysplacedivas @animalkindny @animalkindhudson @animalhaven @animalhopeandwellness Check out the All About Saving Animals Page on Facebook! On Twitter it is Saving Animals!
    https://www.instagram.com/p/CBuTbQ1BGqK/?igshid=1sfycergig0pr

    View Full
  • image

    Some Modok and Rubin ace pride! Gotta draw more of my people, cause they’re mainly of color. It’s just really fun coloring darker skin lmao. Also had to include the blm symbol due to current events :)

    View Full
  • Getting some drawing ideas out of my system with mini paintings… first up is this little Plaguebrand family picture. One day I’ll make this comic a reality I promise… I just need to figure out how I want to draw it.

    #plaguebrand#holloway#rubin#soetkin #gotta have a skinny blonde in there or it's not a dins comic apparently
    View Full
  • apparently I never posted this here… a little painting of Rubin I did a while back

    View Full
  • To see whether I understand correctly and what you all think:

    A simple definition of the value form would be the following: “The social form of commodities and the form of value, or form of exchangeability, are thus one and the same” (Marx, Capital I, in Rubin, Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value, Black Rose Books, 2017, p. 115). I remark that the definition given here by Marx is that the value form is the social form of exchangeability. That is, the value form is a social property that things have being exchangeable and therefore having exchange value. And although things were exchangeable in many different societies and modes of production — hence the attention paid to exchange value by Aristotle — it is only in capitalism where exchangeability is the property of things in general, which means, everything is exchangeable and everything tends to be commodity. So, yes, exchange value existed in many societies, but I disagree with those who say the value form existed in previous societies, because the value form is the general property of things being exchangeable, of products of labor presenting themselves as commodities.

    Marx says that Aristotle was unable see to the substance under exchange value, i.e., the equality of labor. He was unable to see this because he lived in a society where the value form was not the universal form of things: “The secret of the expression of value, namely the equality and the equivalence of all kinds of labor because and in so far as they are human labor in general, could not be deciphered until the concept of human equality had already acquired permanence of a fixed popular opinion. This however becomes possible only in a society where the commodity form is the universal form of the products of labor, hence the dominant social relation is the relation between men as the possessors of commodities.” (Marx, Capital I, Penguin trans. by Fawkes).

    As I read Marx’s value theory, the value form is not just exchange value, but also the fact that things in general can have exchange values. That the commodity is the general form of the existence of the products of labor in capitalism. That’s why I think it only exists in capitalism.

    View Full
  • Hi All. Below is a — relatively brief — statement on my (present) understanding of “value”. While “value” is one of Marx’s most essential concepts it is also one of the most confusing and difficult to understand. I feel that much of the confusion relates to a failure to distinguish between “value” as articulated in Marx’s “Law of Value” (and Engles’ discussion of the same) and the “value form” — often presented as the “Value Form Theory”. Hopefully, this will help clarify this distinction and argument.

    Marx’s “Law of Value” indicates that the way things have exchanged throughout history is through their value or the socially necessary, abstract labor they embody. As I.I. Rubin (Essays on Surplus Value) explains; abstract labor is the “content” or substance of value. The “measure” of this substance can be “money” (but historically has been many things e.g. cattle or even “in the head”/Grundrisse). However, exchange did not dominate the social form and the way wants and needs were provided in previous historical epochs. For example, there was no exchange that measured abstract labor time between lord and serf, master or slave or in “primitive” communal societies. And, as Marx indicates, this relative dearth of exchange is why Aristotle could not understand that when, for example, five beds exchanged for a house in ancient Greece, it was because equal amounts of abstract labor time — as the substance of value — were embodied in the beds and the house. But while the substance of value was the basis of exchange prior to capitalism and frequently measured e.g. by cattle or coins, the value economy or “value form” is a social form where exchange dominates the way people meet their needs and wants. And, in turn, production is increasingly driven by an interest in exchange rather than use value and for accumulating (surplus) value — most often measured by money.

    Thus, what is central to Marx’s critique of political economy is the assertion (theory) that the “value form” — not the substance or measure of value — is a unique, socio-historical construct that is “fetishized” as being timeless, natural or inevitable as and therefore impervious to change. For Marx, the value form can consequently be eliminated (including eliminating measures of value e.g. money as well as labor chits) in a revolutionary communist society. *

    Significantly, the possibility of extinguishing the value form is also at the core of what separates Marx from the socialists of his day (e.g. Proudhon) as well as most contemporary “socialists” who maintain and fetishize the value form by continuing to measure and reward labor time as a basis for providing needs and wants*. Similarly, in contrast to Marx’s “Law of Value”, most political economists who espouse a “Labor Theory of Value” recognize that labor time is the “substance” of value and that is ‘measured” by money, but fetishize the value ‘form’ **. In this way, the dynamics of capitalism that denies the promise of freedom and equality are perpetuated.

    *Albeit, cognition of and apportioning abstract labor time as the substance of value may, of course, be a factor in deciding what and how the wants and needs of those in a communal society are met.

    **Also critiquing the “Labor Theory of Value” of others; Marx’s “Law of Value” posits that the amount of abstract labor time does not necessarily determine value. For example, if a worker takes longer to produce something than what is ‘socially necessary’, it does not have more value. This opposes Ricardo and others who maintained that the value of a commodity was determined solely by the amount of embodied labor. Thus, for Ricardo, the product of a worker who worked faster had less value than the product of someone who worked slower. And opposed to those who assigned value to all products of labor, Marx posited that if something does not or cannot be exchanged and, for example, has no use value for others, it does not have value — no matter how much labor it embodies. So too, Marx noted that it was not only the direct or immediate amount of labor applied that determines value, but value includes the time workers spent to acquire skills as well as the previous labor embodied in the tools or machinery employed. These dimensions of value help further explain how things have exchanged throughout history — before the commodity and value “form”.

    View Full
  • image

    set my girls out together for the first time in a few months 😍 we’re eagerly awaiting the arrival of a new friend, so if ever there was a time to cuddle up on the couch for a nice picture, this is it!

    i really, desperately need to finish the sofa fjcbdbd it just looks like a heap of cardboard right now

    View Full
  • someone: so like.. who’s your favorite artist

    me: have you ever heard of sara rubin :)

    #vermeer has got nothing on ms rubin #klimt? never heard of him #rembrandt WHO??
    View Full
  • image

    from Shane’s instagram posted on July 11th, 2020

    View Full