>>471039>He seems like a knowledgeable economist.nah
he's a typical class collaboration shill
>He's very critical of neoliberalism.so? he's a shill for industrial capitalists (that don't exist anymore)
don't tell me you want a capitalism with a human face lol
>industrial capitalism tendentially evolves towards socialismnonsense
historic industrial capitalism """tendentially""" evolved only into neoliberalism kek
>financial capitalism tendentially evolves towards a type of economic relations reminiscent of feudalismabsolute histmat illiteracy
feudalism in histmat theory is not when you pay for a subscription service
feudalism is an agrarian mode of production with a specific mechanism of surplus extraction
and by this metric this is still capitalism we are living in
>So from the perspective of the workers it's about increasing the cost of using the productive forces to reproduce society.no, even from their perspective it's about reducing costs, because optimization reduces SNLT
>Oh that's a very ideological way of looking at things.nah, what you describe is an ideological way of looking at the production process
I don't talk about abstract philosophycel shit here
I'm talking about concrete time
workers are de facto appendages in the manufacturing - they can't dictates the pace (and by extension time spent) - only machine dictates
that's just a fact, deal with it
>In economic terms human labor is considered as the universal unit of labor, because human labor can make all the things in the economy including all the machines.So? how is this relevant to the FACT that concrete labor time in manufacturing is tied to the machine time?
>You appear to be attempting to re-center that universality on machine capital. It's a bit reminiscent of the mid 20th century technocracy movement, that sought universality in energy.And you appear to be a brainlet who thinks I'm proposing some general economic theory of value based on machine time lol.