That's good to know they're in the penguin edition. Those appendixes are not in mine either. Except I did find like the value-form Doubledee mention. It was kind of nice looking over. But I read the wrong appendix.
Kolibri
venting now about my dad
I wish he would go see someone for his cough already. I was drifting off to sleep when his cough like woke me up. and just aaaaaaaah. why can't he just go! see! a! doctor! why does he keep refusing! he was telling me yesterday that he was happy putting off his yearly health physical or whatever for another month. and like why why why why why why.
trying not to let panic set in. but now I can't sleep and need to relax. because my mind keeps going to the worst of places like that he dying and he will be dead soon and like. just need to breath I guess.
doesn't help his cough also reminds me of my mom because she had copd and like just.
I seriously want what feels like a nightmare to end
I dunno if this will be helpful, but in the appendix, Marx talks a little more about the relative form, equivalent form, and money form here. Explaining more about it and I feel in a lot clearer terms?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm
I really liked Marx bringing in more of that dialectical materialism at the end of chapter 32? this part. Along with the appendix to.
The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.
The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people.
to vol 1 being read!
Nice! It's really neat you got to see one of those small battys!
small business orders reminded me of like, this one part from Capital? just mainly like, that capitalist require a certain amount of exploitation just to like not work for themselves eventually?
but like this part!
spoiler
From the treatment of the production of surplus-value, so far, it follows that not every sum of money, or of value, is at pleasure transformable into capital. To effect this transformation, in fact, a certain minimum of money or of exchange-value must be presupposed in the hands of the individual possessor of money or commodities. The minimum of variable capital is the cost price of a single labour-power, employed the whole year through, day in, day out, for the production of surplus-value. If this labourer were in possession of his own means of production, and were satisfied to live as a labourer, he need not work beyond the time necessary for the reproduction of his means of subsistence, say 8 hours a day. He would, besides, only require the means of production sufficient for 8 working-hours. The capitalist, on the other hand, who makes him do, besides these 8 hours, say 4 hours’ surplus-labour, requires an additional sum of money for furnishing the additional means of production. On our supposition, however, he would have to employ two labourers in order to live, on the surplus-value appropriated daily, as well as, and no better than a labourer, i.e., to be able to satisfy his necessary wants. In this case the mere maintenance of life would be the end of his production, not the increase of wealth; but this latter is implied in capitalist production. That he may live only twice as well as an ordinary labourer, and besides turn half of the surplus-value produced into capital, he would have to raise, with the number of labourers, the minimum of the capital advanced 8 times. Of course he can, like his labourer, take to work himself, participate directly in the process of production, but he is then only a hybrid between capitalist and labourer, a “small master.” A certain stage of capitalist production necessitates that the capitalist be able to devote the whole of the time during which he functions as a capitalist, i.e., as personified capital, to the appropriation and therefore control of the labour of others, and to the selling of the products of this labour....
venting kind of? also mental health sort of? just stuff about grief and my mom being gone
I think im getting a little better and handling like that grief? when it decides to come by. I don't know. maybe not considering like yesterday or two I got very upset with my dad and his drinking. but like he's alive. meanwhile my mom not. and like I know almost everyone goes through this eventually, but still it just like. It hurts? at least for me, it hurts. and at least for me its kind of hard to deal with.
just I don't know. in some way I feel bad that like. I should be over this? it's been around a year more or less. but im not really over it. and it's not really easy to just "get over it". I don't think you can. Maybe over time. I don't know. I'm just like trying to calm myself and trying not to like cry. I already do that way too much. It also def. doesn't help things were very complicated with my mom and so it makes it a little harder? and she like died very fast. and along all that there other stressors to like with my dad.
just like at least this time, I was able to calm myself. even if it was like, really hard. Just I dunno. I didn't expect my mom death to like, upset me this much.
going to chapter 31, I also found this part really interesting?
I know it's like way back then with primitive accumulation, but it reminds me of some stuff today still? But things are different now with like, the United States and the dollar being a world reserve currency? I dunno it just like, this part was interesting to think a little about.
spoiler tagging because big
The system of public credit, i.e., of national debts, whose origin we discover in Genoa and Venice as early as the Middle Ages, took possession of Europe generally during the manufacturing period. The colonial system with its maritime trade and commercial wars served as a forcing-house for it. Thus it first took root in Holland. National debts, i.e., the alienation of the state – whether despotic, constitutional or republican – marked with its stamp the capitalistic era. The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possessions of modern peoples is their national debt. [7] Hence, as a necessary consequence, the modern doctrine that a nation becomes the richer the more deeply it is in debt. Public credit becomes the credo of capital. And with the rise of national debt-making, want of faith in the national debt takes the place of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which may not be forgiven.
The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. As with the stroke of an enchanter’s wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and thus turns it into capital, without the necessity of its exposing itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury. The state creditors actually give nothing away, for the sum lent is transformed into public bonds, easily negotiable, which go on functioning in their hands just as so much hard cash would. But further, apart from the class of lazy annuitants thus created, and from the improvised wealth of the financiers, middlemen between the government and the nation – as also apart from the tax-farmers, merchants, private manufacturers, to whom a good part of every national loan renders the service of a capital fallen from heaven – the national debt has given rise to joint-stock companies, to dealings in negotiable effects of all kinds, and to agiotage, in a word to stock-exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy.
At their birth the great banks, decorated with national titles, were only associations of private speculators, who placed themselves by the side of governments, and, thanks to the privileges they received, were in a position to advance money to the State. Hence the accumulation of the national debt has no more infallible measure than the successive rise in the stock of these banks, whose full development dates from the founding of the Bank of England in 1694. The Bank of England began with lending its money to the Government at 8%; at the same time it was empowered by Parliament to coin money out of the same capital, by lending it again to the public in the form of banknotes. It was allowed to use these notes for discounting bills, making advances on commodities, and for buying the precious metals. It was not long ere this credit-money, made by the bank itself, became. The coin in which the Bank of England made its loans to the State, and paid, on account of the State, the interest on the public debt. It was not enough that the bank gave with one hand and took back more with the other; it remained, even whilst receiving, the eternal creditor of the nation down to the last shilling advanced. Gradually it became inevitably the receptacle of the metallic hoard of the country, and the centre of gravity of all commercial credit. What effect was produced on their contemporaries by the sudden uprising of this brood of bankocrats, financiers, rentiers, brokers, stock-jobbers, &c., is proved by the writings of that time, e.g., by Bolingbroke’s.
With the national debt arose an international credit system, which often conceals one of the sources of primitive accumulation in this or that people. Thus the villainies of the Venetian thieving system formed one of the secret bases of the capital-wealth of Holland to whom Venice in her decadence lent large sums of money. So also was it with Holland and England. By the beginning of the 18th century the Dutch manufactures were far outstripped. Holland had ceased to be the nation preponderant in commerce and industry. One of its main lines of business, therefore, from 1701-1776, is the lending out of enormous amounts of capital, especially to its great rival England. The same thing is going on today between England and the United States. A great deal of capital, which appears today in the United States without any certificate of birth, was yesterday, in England, the capitalised blood of children.
As the national debt finds its support in the public revenue, which must cover the yearly payments for interest, &c., the modern system of taxation was the necessary complement of the system of national loans. The loans enable the government to meet extraordinary expenses, without the tax-payers feeling it immediately, but they necessitate, as a consequence, increased taxes. On the other hand, the raising of taxation caused by the accumulation of debts contracted one after another, compels the government always to have recourse to new loans for new extraordinary expenses. Modern fiscality, whose pivot is formed by taxes on the most necessary means of subsistence (thereby increasing their price), thus contains within itself the germ of automatic progression. Overtaxation is not an incident, but rather a principle.
I been trying the system shock 1 remake and it's been pretty fun. Except for the random enemies that respawn and do a little scare, also it's really evil that the laser turrets or whatever their called, move and follow you.
It was kind of nice just going out late at night at like 1am, just thinking about stuff alone. Also it was pretty chilly to but that was nice to for some reason. Along with just like listening to the night sounds