>Nick Land (my first mistake) convinces me to take Marx seriously

File: F8hIAON.png (475KB, 680x474px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 680x474px

>Nick Land (my first mistake) convinces me to take Marx seriously
>open this shit
>Chapter 1: Commodities
>A commodity is something that satisfies a human want
>So far, so good
>The kind of want makes no difference
>okay?
>Neither are we concerned with how the wants are satisfied
>...okay?
>Ignore the weird dismissal of value
>move on
>The utility of a thing makes it a use value
>Yes!
>read on
>A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.
>well, that's a weird way to justify abstraction
>But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value
>evidently
>If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities...
> because of triangles, got it
>...they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour
>...or that they're valuable
>there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract
>so, labour = real value
>value = "use" value
>...you've got to be fucking kidding me

>TFW Stalin murdered 60 million people because Marx didn't understand value

Should I read on, /his/?