/lit/ - Literature

how do I get into post-left anarchist thought?

>>14616261
your ignorance is striking
>what's the use value of art?
why does it matter? in Marx's theory socially necessary labour time explains exchange values, use values are their prerequisites but they are not quanitifiable.
>how do u define the use value of beethoven
learn what "define" means
>what's the use value of fine art paintings that are nothing more than scams?
literally doesn't matter in the light of LTV
>what's the social necesary labour time of luxury goods like the cheap chinese toys I bought off my dog?
it's probably low given that you bought them cheaply. honestly, your "gotchas" are tiresome but you probably think that they are brilliant excerpts from some fucking book of revelations so there we go
>what's the social value of pornography?
can you even read? it's SOCIALLY NECESSARY LABOUR TIME, not some fucking social value. still asking a bunch of rhethorical questions hardly qualifies as criticism.
>so you consider things that refute your entire analisis irrelevant?
way to out yourself as a brainlet. Ricardo and Marx never claimed to have a theory of auction prices/prices of works of art simply because they didn't need them. they were interested in a much broader world of industrial mass production. since they never pretended to explain those prices, the fact that LTV does not explain art prices does nothing to refute LTV.
>what's the economic input of anime to japan economy retard?
lmao art means creative effort that is not easily reproducible. to the owner it probably matters a lot if he is in possession of Rembrandt's original painting or a cheap fraud. in contrast manga or anime are just like books and movies, they take a material form of either comic booklets or DVDs/Blu-Rays which are easily reproducible unlike Rembrandt and therefore those material media are subject to the LTV
>Are videogames irrelevant when It produces something like GTA V a billion dollars?
again - games are easily reproducible in their material form which distinguishes them from luxury products available in limited supply and sold during auctions
>I literally refuted easily every argument you spouted there.
keep believing that
>but art is irrelevant because it doesn't follow my thoery
art is irrelevant because most people don't own any works of art anyway. what you seem to take for a work of "art" are reproducible commodities which are different from non-reproducible luxurious paintings etc. inclusion of art into any theory of economic dynamics wouldn't change anything the same way that exclusion of tampons wouldn't change anything in the big picture. also - learn to write
>So what's the economic value of having nice architecture for things like tourism?
use value or exchange value? Marx used well defined terms, if you want to refute him it is advisable to do the same.

Where do I start with the Anarchists?

>it is impossible to abstract the individual from the society for the society has shaped and nurtured them, there is no individuality to speak of

this makes "anarcho"individualists seethe

>>14353859
based bakuninist