this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
196 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15914 readers
8 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Heinlein couldn't help himself though and had to really epically DEMOLISH Marx

He had been droning along about “value,” comparing the Marxist theory with the orthodox “use” theory. Mr. Dubois had said, “Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.

“These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value—the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives—and illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use.”

So he's at least making the political alignment of his future earth much clearer with this.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I am so tired of rebuttals of Marxism defining the concept of socially necessary labor time and claiming Marxism is now debunked because Marx never accounted for it. It's literally the first page of Capital.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

He also wrote a whole book for people that might be specifically interested in value.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.

does this just completely contradict the point the character (and author) are trying to make or am i too stoned to read?

Death to America

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

It's a kitchen illustration. It completely demolishes Marx in just a couple paragraphs. What more do you ask for!?

Heinlein goes on to define Value a bit more to make his point, but I can't be assed to go find the quote again. But his point here is that effort is worthless and only the result of the effort matters. But it's such a joke of a point that I'd have assumed it was satire, if not for the fact that nothing else about the book is satire.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Its an intentional/unintentional misreading of the idea of "labor adding value". Literally ascribing to Marx/communists the idea that applying any amount of labor to a production task can fundamentally change the output.

Heinlein's character is basically saying that Marx believes:

"Garbage in" results in "Not garbage out" if enough labor is applied.

Which is complete nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lol I forgot that, what is it with everyone trying to demolish Marx with FACTS and LOGIC and using the exact same example of "mud pies"?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

Heinlein is the earliest example of the mud pie argument I know of, so it's possible everyone got it from him. There's also a CS Lewis story about an impoverished kid choosing between a fancy vacation or making mud pies. He chooses the latter because he can't fathom what a vacation is. I have no idea if that's related either but I've always had a hunch

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Oh yeah that's right! There's that random rant by Rico's teacher that's just so obviously the author preaching. I forgot about that. It's so out of place my brain forgot it was a part of that book!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

The whole book is mostly just Heinlein preachsturbating.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

I love how every single anti-communist who rants about Marx "not getting it" will use examples that Marx specifically addressed in volume 1 of Capital.