I think one of the main effect a state should have in this model is offset the negotiations in favor of the ruling class, since the point of the state is to allow the ruling class to guaranty their control over the means of productions.

For example, if workers try to occupy their employer’s factory as a bargaining chip, the owner would call the bourgeoie police to chase them, taking the bargaining chip away from the workers and back to the capitalist who hereby maintain his control over the worker’s jobs and consumption.

So the rulling class should be assumed to have an advantage in negotiations.

If you can find a way to quantify both classes’ negotiation advantage/disadvantage through their amount of control over the means of production, and maybe find a way to have it change over time as class struggle changes the amount of control they have, maybe you could even model the effect of protests and revolutions.

I know right? The purest brainrot I tell you.

This is very interesting.

I think you should try to see what happen if you take into account the influence of the state, not just the bourgeois state but try to see what happen when either classes have state power.

You should also try to account for the tendency for the rate of profit to fall as automation squeeze labor out of production.

Well I wonder who’s fault that is.

Turkey is cooking.

Why is it R = p X_A - k p X_B? Shouldn’t it be R = (p X_A) / (k p X_B)?

I don’t think I understand how the model works.

What is R exactly and how do you get it from X_A and X_B. And what are X_A and X_B in the first place?

If I understand correctly the graph, there are 3 distinct regions.

The very small region at the to where R>1, that seems to imply a situation where A and B would sort of switch roles, A would own most of the capital and B would own little to no capital and would live off of their labor power.

The large middle “north-east” region where 1>R>0, where B’s capital increases faster than A’s. Itself made up of 3 regions, one where A does most of the labor and own little to no capital, one where A does little work despite owning little to no capital, and one where A work little and own most capital similar to the first big region.

And the bottom right corner region where R<0, where either A or B is losing capital, but I’m not sure which.

What did you use to get this graph?

What are alpha and beta?

cool

These are the facts and I could give you charts with the soviet export.

Why say I could and not do it? If you have sources, give them. You haven’t linked any source whatsoever in this entire thread to back up your wild claims.

Ha, yes. The infamous “deathworld” trope. They absolutely love this one but can never do it well.

I’m sure there is a way to make Earth the most dangerous planet or whatever for plot reasons in a way that work, but this aint it. The way “deathworld” is defined in these stories is always so hollow, lazy and vibe based it’s just not believable at all.

I’m not too familiar with 40k so I don’t know. I’m talking about HFY stories on I’ve read on the internet, so stuff not written by professional writers.

HFY, as far as my experience goes is like 70% lowest common denominator cookie cutter sf trope, 29% cryptofash genocide fantasy about how the aliens deserved to be genocided, and once in a blue moon you find some of the 1% stories that aren’t too bad.

The deprogram episode on her is good at exposing how terrible Kopmala is.

My hope is that. If we’re very lucky, the EU/NATO axis sacrificing the french economy for the benefit of the American bourgeoisie might push the french petty bourgeoisie to want to overthrow the US loyalist bourgeoisie. So not a communist revolution but at least an anti-American revolt that would weaken both the US hegemony and the French bourgeoisie, making an actual communist revolution in France easier. But is that realistic though?

You know what? Most liberals wouldn’t even have acknowledged that much, you have my upvote.