#rubin Tumblr posts

  • Why do you roleplay Ruvik so weird?

    I made Ruvik ‘scared’ of male doctors

    Hate warm water

    Have an electrical stove

    Constant zip up hoodies and barefoot in the house

    Dating Leslie

    Panic attacks(slight) when talking about Jimenez or doctors.

    Paranoia

    Lessened hallucinations

    PTSD

    The simplest answer is:

    Archive fanfics and rule 34 art-

    View Full
  • Hi all. This is the most recent installment of my Grundrisse overview. It only covers a few pages but with a lot packed in. This overview provides one of the best foundations for understanding ‘value’, communal relations of production, and the related change in the relation between the individual and society; time, alienation – as well as a 'richer’ understanding of money.

    A. Smith’s thesis that a worker has to produce a general commodity for money and exchange alongside a particular commodity for use means nothing more than that particular labor cannot be exchanged for every other particular labor, but that its general exchangeability must first be mediated and take on an objective form different from itself to be exchangeable.

    Looked at in the act of production itself: individual labor is the money used to directly buy a particular product – the object of particular activity. And it is particular money that buys this specific product. To be general it would not be particular, but general labor from the onset and posited as a link in general production; but, on this presupposition, it would not be exchange that gave labor its general character, but its communal character would determine the distribution of products. And the communal character of production would make the product general and communal from the onset. (Here) exchange that originally takes place in production – which would not be an exchange of exchange values but activities determined by communal needs/ purposes – would include the participation of the individual in the communal world of production from the onset. On the basis of exchange, labor is posited as general only via exchange; but, on the communal foundation, it would be posited as such before exchange, and the exchange of products would not be the medium by which the participation of the individual in general production is mediated. However, mediation must take place.

    In the first case – proceeding from independent, individual production – no matter how much individual (p. 171) productions determine and modify each other post festum, through the exchange of commodities/ exchange value and money. In the second case, the presupposition itself is mediated, i.e., communal production, communality is presupposed as the basis of production. The labor of the individual is posited at the onset as social labor. Therefore, whatever the material form of the product created, labor is not a specific, particular product, but a specific share of the communal product. A worker has no particular product to exchange and the product is not exchange value. The product does not have to be transposed to a particular form to attain a general (and social) character for the individual. Instead of a division of labor created by exchange and exchange value, there would be an organization of labor whose consequences would be the participation of the individual in communal consumption.

    In the first case, the social character is posited post festum with the elevation of products to exchange values and exchange of these exchange values. In the second case, the social character of production is presupposed and consumption is not mediated by exchange by mutually independent labors or products of labor. Instead, it is mediated by the social conditions of production in which the individual is active; and by those who want to determine that labor is directly general labor and, therefore, negating the conditions in which labor is made into money and exchange values and under which it depends on private exchange. This demand can only be satisfied under conditions where it can no longer be raised (revolution: post festum!) Labor based on exchange values presupposes that neither individuals nor their products are directly general, that the product attains this form by passing through an objective form by means of money – distinct from itself.

    On the basis of communal production, time remains essential. The less time society spends on producing wheat, cattle, etc., the more time it has for other production – material or mental. Just as an individual’s development, enjoyment (p. 172), and activity depends on economization of time, society has to distribute its time in a purposeful way to achieve production adequate to its overall needs. The economy of time and planned distribution of labor is thus the first economic law based on communal production; becoming law to an even higher degree. However, this is different from measuring exchange values – labor and products – by labor time. The labor of individuals in the same branch of work with various kinds of work are different quantitatively and qualitatively. But solely quantitative differences presuppose an identity of their qualities. Hence, quantitative measures of labor presuppose equivalence and identity of quality (p. 173).

    View Full
  • rubin: i’m your leader and you will refer to me as such!

    bc, jinwoo, jehyun, and junghoon in unison: okay, such

    View Full
  • How the FUCK is Ruvik going to be scarier walking then he is standing… imagine this boy running after you. Bitch he sanic.

    #ruvik#ruvik victoriano#rubin#rubin victoriano#tew#tew2 #the evil within #the evil within 2
    View Full
  • I picked Rubin as my bias in 1team because I thought he was the one with red hair in the vibe mv. That’s the soul reason. I got him mixed up with Jinwoo and was gonna switch til I found out just now that he’s not only the leader in 1team but HE HAS FUCKING TATTOOS BITCH FUCK. ARE YOU FUCKING ME??? I spent 10 minutes relearning how to breathe at this fact. And Rubin has a lot but BC has more. BC HAS TATTOOS TOO. AND SO DOES JINWOO. Why do these children have tattoos?

    Listen, I have biases that are leaders and I have biases that have tattoos and I have biases that have piercings but this it getting too much. St.Van is the leader and has tattoos, Jaebum is the leader and has a fUCKING NOSE PIERCING, Rubin is the leader and has tattoos. Baby Lion has a nose piercing, Changkyun has an eyebrow piercing and tattoos, LE and Mint both have belly button piercings, I thought Roda had a tongue piercing, Seungwoo and his tattoo, Jay Park and all his piercings and tattoos, Monster fucking Woo, some members have piercings all the way up their ears, it’s too much. My heart can’t handle it. When you have tattoos AND piercings on top of someone who is sexy you get me crying and nutting in a puddle. And I’m not talking about basic ear piercings. Idols with other piercings or multiple ear piercings, I can’t.

    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
    image

    LOOK AT THESE PICS AND TELL ME YOU DIDNT SCREAM/CRY/NUT.

    I can’t nut to 1team but I couldn’t stop screaming. They have tattoos I’m surprised. I didn’t think they had any. And I cried at Cya’s lip ring, he looks so good, even though his and Ayno’s are fake. But 1team seem like such babies, especially Rubin but I’ve never ooped so hard. This was supposed to be a 1team post but it got outta hand oops

    View Full
  • 1team Moodboards

    image

    Originally posted by guksuu

    Lee Rubin

    Chin Sungho (BC)

    Lee Jinwoo

    Moon Jehyun

    Lee Junghoon

    View Full
  • 191126 ☆ make this

    #1team#1teamnet#rubin#lee rubin#bc#jin sungho#jinwoo#lee jinwoo#jehyun#moon jehyun#junghoon#lee junghoon#mine#gifs #i'm on break rn so i finally have time to make gifs #:)) #ignore how grainy some of these are oops i might have zoomed in too much #some of them are also kinda dark so i should have adjusted the brightness but i got lazy #maybe i'll do some more stages later #all my men looking good this era though
    View Full
  • I’m continually revising my discussion of Marx’s theory of value and am currently feeling very disorganized and muddled. Hopefully fleshing this out will provide enough clear argumentation and explanation.

    “Value” represents the amount of social labor necessary to (re)produce a commodity. By definition, social labor is something that only humans do. In all societies, human activity must be somehow apportioned to different branches of the division of labor that produce what is necessary for the society to reproduce (and also more than what is only necessary – surplus product). It can be done consciously, through a common, agreed upon plan or through direct relations of domination, for example. Marx views capitalism as a society where it is done indirectly, through commodity exchange mediated by money. It’s still done in terms of apportioning quantities of human activity, though. It’s only that these quantities appear as properties of things (values or prices); and the point is that the way labor is organized in capitalism is precisely through impersonal domination.

    In pre-capitalist societies, the domination in organizing social labor was personal and direct: the ruler or chief commanded people to do stuff. Labor was directly social (no exchange needed to recognize labor as social), but there was a lot of direct domination and violence. In capitalism, labor is not directly social, but carried out by private producers. There are no rulers to organize production. So the way it’s done is through this roundabout operation on the market, where it is decided whether products (and the quantities of labor expended on them) count as social. There is no direct domination, but there is indirect, impersonal domination – exerted via prices, for example, or by the fact that someone who only owns labor power is forced to sell it or live in abject poverty (at best). The impersonal movement of “things” and “their” properties (values and prices) makes people do things and dominates them. So, impersonal domination is the way social labor is organized in capitalism; and yes, indeed, all of this organizing is done through nothing else than by expenditure of abstract social labor.

    My justification for a definition like this – that human social labor is a central concept in Marx’s understanding of all societies, and so to understand a society means to explain how social labor is organized in it. And this is what the definition of the value of a commodity as congealed social labor enables us to do (or so Marx thought).

    So, Marx’s theory of value is about how social labor is apportioned in generalized commodity production. The point of Marx’s value theory is basically to explain how the distribution of social labor time works in capitalism. Marx assumes (correctly, I believe) that money, which he decides to call a form of value, is a tool that facilitates the organization of human labor; money is a form taken by something called value. Value, money, etc., is used to organize economic activity in a particularly asocial kind of society; and, in a competitive market society, there will tend to be equilibrium (abstracting for the moment from “prices of production”?) in exchange ratios between products of labor, and logically the ratios must revolve around quantities of labor, at least at the level of simple commodity production, which is more a conceptual tool than a real historical phase.

    It seems there is reason enough to be wary of viewing the analysis of the form of value as a series of historical descriptions (from “simple commodity production” up to a fully developed capitalist commodity-money economy). It’s more an abstract analysis of value relations in a fully developed capitalist commodity-money economy. The analysis is abstract in the sense that, at first, it abstracts from more complicated elements (such as money) in order to explain them from simpler elements (two commodities, their relation, relative and equivalent form, etc.); but the analysis is always firmly situated within a society with money (i.e., there’s no historical transformation involved between forms of value – it’s purely conceptual “development”). Rubin is not completely clear on this although I remember he rejects the “logico-historical interpretation” as such.

    View Full
  • ANGEL | 1TEAM’S “MAKE THIS” ONE SHOWCASE (x)
    View Full
  • CENTER RUBIN | 1TEAM’S “MAKE THIS” ONE SHOWCASE (x)
    #rubin#rubin lee#lee rubin#1team rubin#1team #HKJSHFKS..................... LOVE U...................................... #gifs
    View Full
  • 1team as john mulaney gifs

    bc

    image

    rubin

    image

    jinwoo

    image

    jehyun

    image

    junghoon

    image

    all of them

    image
    View Full
  • Attempting to formulate Marx’s idea of the “value form” in the simplest way possible – this stuff gets mind numbingly frustrating quick. Marx doesn’t operate using discrete definitions, because everything only has its coherence in the context of the totality. So, one looks for a definition of “value” and this leads to its three components; but these components themselves require extensive clarification: what is “abstract labor”? What is meant by “socially necessary”? How does socially necessary “average labor time” have any causal efficacy? What determines the average? Etc.). One always seems to be led in multiple directions, in expanding and contracting circles. I’m still not used it to be honest.

    Now, as per the comments above, the “value form” is the particular form of exchangeability of commodities that emerges within capitalism. “Value” also has a substance (abstract labor) and magnitude (socially necessary average labor time). Often in Marx he will use “value” in the limited sense of the value form (exchangeability, or concrete exchange values). Exchangeability is its form and “exchange value” the ratio of exchange.

    So, within capitalist commodity production, the “value form” is exchangeability; and non-capitalist forms do not operate under the domination of the value relation. Exchange has taken other forms historically, it long predates capitalism; but it wasn’t based on “value” in Marx’s sense, which requires generalized commodity production and robust integrated markets to operate.

    View Full
  • image

    1TEAM “ONE” jacket shooting behind the scenes

    #1team#rubin#jehyun #BEST FOR LAST #THIS PIC IS SO CUTE #x#keep: 1team
    View Full
  • image
    image

    1TEAM “ONE” jacket shooting behind the scenes

    #now that im not on media limit anymore hehe ill finish uploading the naver pics!! #1team#rubin#junghoon#jehyun#x #again not my gifs these were in the article :~*
    View Full
  • View Full
  • “MAKE THIS” [behind the scenes]
    rubin 

    +

    image
    #1team#1teamnet#rubin#my gif #the gif of him smiling :((((((((((( sir i LOVE you! #alternatively titled: rubin being the most beautiful most radiant person
    View Full