Favorite and least favorite parts of Capital

ahem, er, Jack, i think they're talking about the book.

Best bit is the plethora of consumer goods [opening para of Ch 1). Worst bit is getting up for work [section on the working day]

His labour constantly undergoes a transformation: from being motion, it becomes an object without motion

In England, modern society is indisputably most highly and classically developed in economic structure. Nevertheless, even here the stratification of classes does not appear in its pure form. Middle and intermediate strata even here obliterate lines of demarcation everywhere (although incomparably less in rural districts than in the cities). However, this is immaterial for our analysis. We have seen that the continual tendency and law of development of the capitalist mode of production is more and more to divorce the means of production from labour, and more and more to concentrate the scattered means of production into large groups, thereby transforming labour into wage-labour and the means of production into capital. And to this tendency, on the other hand, corresponds the independent separation of landed property from capital and labour,[58] or the transformation of all landed property into the form of landed property corresponding to the capitalist mode of production.

The first question to he answered is this: What constitutes a class? — and the reply to this follows naturally from the reply to another question, namely: What makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landlords constitute the three great social classes?

At first glance — the identity of revenues and sources of revenue. There are three great social groups whose members, the individuals forming them, live on wages, profit and ground-rent respectively, on the realisation of their labour-power, their capital, and their landed property.

However, from this standpoint, physicians and officials, e.g., would also constitute two classes, for they belong to two distinct social groups, the members of each of these groups receiving their revenue from one and the same source. The same would also be true of the infinite fragmentation of interest and rank into which the division of social labour splits labourers as well as capitalists and landlords-the latter, e.g., into owners of vineyards, farm owners, owners of forests, mine owners and owners of fisheries.

[Here the manuscript breaks off.]

I bet they have Society of the Spectacle though, right?

alibadani wrote:

Err Joseph K that's a stretch. Jack had no idea the topic was about the book.

Jesus, you really are a bit soft, aren't you.

taking the piss.

makaira wrote:

revol68 wrote:

taking the piss.

We need to establish something:

(1) Piss/Pissed in US means "mad."

(2) Piss/Pissed in UK means "drunk."

Now, "taking the piss" seems to mean "poking fun," which means neither "taking the mad" nor "taking the drunk."

You know what's amazing how people in the UK and Ireland can use the same word in many many different contexts, we're sophiscated like that.

what the fuck are you guys on about it seems every body does a shit load ot talkinh and takes no fucking action. we will never find peace or freedom from oppresion without action, physical action...

"what the fuck are you guys on about"

Well, I can tell you 100% he/she is not from the US. This is your responsibility revol.

what the fuck are you guys on about it seems every body does a shit load ot talkinh and takes no fucking action. we will never find peace or freedom from oppresion without action, physical action...