: : I don't understand your definition of TWO types of consumption, and the distinction seems to me to break down with the slightest examination.: One more time for the hearing impared: unproductive consumption and reproductive consumption. The first transmits the use-values within the objects consumed to another object (a commodity); the second is simply consumed (no value transfered).
Do you mean that the SECOND (reproductive) transmits the use-values bla blabla and the FIRST (unproductive) is simply consumed? I hope so.
Anyway, I don't know if you noticed, but I posted my response before you clarified your terms as reproductive and unproductive. So, your "hearing-impaired" snipe doesn't make much sense.
: Stoller [repeating myself]:
: [T]he important distinction is that some consumption eradicates a commodity and some consumption MAKES MONEY.
: : The only kind of consumption I can think of that MAKES MONEY is consumption of a printing press, (assuming that by money you mean paper bills. Anything can potentially be a medium of exchange, or "money".)
: Silly. Why am I even bothering with you?
Beats me. Maybe somewhere, deep inside the raging ideologue, lies someone interested in the truth.
Seriously, no consumption (other than that of a printing press) MAKES MONEY. Some consumption may make something worthy of EXCHANGE FOR MONEY. This is an important (and obvious) distinction which you can't seem to get your head around.
: : Only because, as I've said above, there doesn't seem to be a substantive difference between your "productive consumption" and your "final consumption". You say that productive consumption has a PROFIT-MAKING character. But my examples of shit and toasters seem to indicate that what you call "final consumption" may also have a profit-making character.
: Your (silly) examples are examples of reproductive consumption.
So, eating is unproductive consumption if I don't sell my shit but it's reproductive consumption if I do?
Read that question again and answer it.
: : You lost me. What's an M-C-M CIRCUIT?
: Didn't read the link provided before, did you? Are you lazy or something? For someone so arrogant, laziness is unbecoming...
Not lazy, just don't have infinite time. Since your link appeared to be a supporting point for your strawman, I didn't bother reading it. I've read it now. Thanks.
The main problem with this whole M-C-M circuit thing seems to me that it has as it's very first premise a pretty HUGE assumption, namely that there are two distinct classes, the working class and the capitalist class. How is this premise proved? By the M-C-M circuit. How is the M-C-M circuit proved? By the existence of two classes. Welcome to circular reasoning.
But, I am interested in this M-C-M thing and I plan to read more. I assume I should go to Das Kapital?
: : Okay, I've gone back and reread your original post. Correct me where I'm wrong. You've posited two kinds of goods, regardless of their owner [what?]: Consumer Goods, goods which "once consumed, are gone and must be purchased again in order to reproduce those items' use-value," and Productive Goods, goods which "once consumed (in the production process), become items retaining their previous value as well as possessing added value."
: : I'm guessing you would call a toaster a good of the second type. Or is it a good of a third type which you haven't yet defined? Please tell me. Or is its classification dependent on what one decides to do with the toast?
: Try reading my posts a little more carefully. I tire of repeating simple points again and again (each time for a new knucklehead who expects a command performance).
Nice evasion.
No wait. I take it back. A nice evasion would be one where it wasn't so obvious that you were evading.
None.
