The English Language

[Michael Flatt]

Hi.

What does it mean that

'Unlike a combination, a sacrifice is not always a calculable commodity...'

It is poor English. I think the author is trying to say "the value of a sacrifice is not always immediately obvious or readily quantifiable".

I would suggest that you avoid slavishly translating the article word for word.

Your translation would benefit from understanding in general terms what the author is saying and put it into your own words. You need to recognise and take advantage of the fact that different languages often express a given idea in different ways.

A literal translation will lack fluency and interest. In short, it will be difficult and uninteresting to read.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Hi.

What does it mean that

'Unlike a combination, a sacrifice is not always a calculable commodity...'

It is poor English. I think the author is trying to say "the value of a sacrifice is not always immediately obvious or readily quantifiable".

I would suggest that you avoid slavishly translating the article word for word.

Your translation would benefit from understanding in general terms what the author is saying and put it into your own words. You need to recognise and take advantage of the fact that different languages often express a given idea in different ways.

A literal translation will lack fluency and interest. In short, it will be difficult and uninteresting to read.

I'd not translated commodity but I then saw that and thought maybe GM Seirawan used it on purpose....

[Arshad Ali]

What does it mean that

'Unlike a combination, a sacrifice is not always a calculable commodity...'

It is the reification of abstract exchanges that constitutes one of the defining characteristics of late capitalism (or as some term it, neoliberalism). More and more aspects of life get commoditised in late capitalism (including chess sacrifices); some Marxist theorists conjecture that this is because of the falling rate of profit in usual business.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

What does it mean that

'Unlike a combination, a sacrifice is not always a calculable commodity...'

It is the reification of abstract exchanges that constitutes one of the defining characteristics of late capitalism (or as some term it, neoliberalism). More and more aspects of life get commoditised in late capitalism (including chess sacrifices); some Marxist theorists conjecture that this is because of the falling rate of profit in usual business.

I didn't get you Arshad.

[Michael Farthing]

I didn't get you Arshad.

Neither did anyone else

[Barry Sandercock]

The best way to get definitions of all these words is to look on the internet at Wikipedia in google.

[John McKenna]

What does it mean that

'Unlike a combination, a sacrifice is not always a calculable commodity...'

It is the reification of abstract exchanges that constitutes one of the defining characteristics of late capitalism (or as some term it, neoliberalism). More and more aspects of life get commoditised in late capitalism (including chess sacrifices); some Marxist theorists conjecture that this is because of the falling rate of profit in usual business.

I didn't get you Arshad.

I got it but there are those who don't agree with what's given above...

Alan (research assistant) in reply to Jeff (PhD in Political Science and Masters in Public Policy, 7 days ago)

Jeff, Marx was a spectacular failure for a number of reasons. 1. He failed to understand economic growth through productivity growth. 2. He failed to destroy his primary hate - private property. Since the mid 19th century, private property owndership has exploded. 3. Marx thought the most important idea he ever wrote about was *the tendency for the average rate of profit fo fall.* No such tendency ever emerged, and thus the world has never been richer than it is 2014. Samer per capita. But he remains a marvelous misanthropic bitch.


For the article being discussed and more comments on it see -

http://theconversation.com/thomas-piket ... time-26039

[Arshad Ali]

I got it but there are those who don't agree with what's given above...

Alan (research assistant) in reply to Jeff (PhD in Political Science and Masters in Public Policy, 7 days ago)

Jeff, Marx was a spectacular failure for a number of reasons. 1. He failed to understand economic growth through productivity growth. 2. He failed to destroy his primary hate - private property. Since the mid 19th century, private property owndership has exploded. 3. Marx thought the most important idea he ever wrote about was *the tendency for the average rate of profit fo fall.* No such tendency ever emerged, and thus the world has never been richer than it is 2014. Samer per capita. But he remains a marvelous misanthropic bitch.


For the article being discussed and more comments on it see -

http://theconversation.com/thomas-piket ... time-26039

Piketty, Piketty, Piketty. Over the last six or eight weeks it's become absolutely de rigueur for the in-crowd to mention him or to review his book (even if the reviewer hasn't read it). Piketty is not Marx (which is precisely what makes him palatable to the hand-wringing liberals out there). Marx, for all his faults, provided a theoretical analysis of 19th century industrial capitalism. All Piketty does is bring in this r>g formulation. There's a good comparison of Marx and Piketty in Danish:

http://kritiskdebat.dk/news.php?readmore=144

[Michael Farthing]

Well at least I know why my sacrifices keep on back-firing. Not done the Marxist analysis properly.

[Arshad Ali]

Well at least I know why my sacrifices keep on back-firing. Not done the Marxist analysis properly.

The "profit motive" comes into chess -- what will my return on investment be if I sac a pawn/piece/the exchange? If I exchange pawns and/or pieces, do I come out ahead? Transactions abound in chess. That's why Trevanian, in his novel Shibumi, describes chess as a game for merchants:

What Go is to philosophers and warriors, chess is to accountants and merchants.

[Clive Blackburn]

What does it mean that

'Unlike a combination, a sacrifice is not always a calculable commodity...'

It is the reification of abstract exchanges that constitutes one of the defining characteristics of late capitalism (or as some term it, neoliberalism). More and more aspects of life get commoditised in late capitalism (including chess sacrifices); some Marxist theorists conjecture that this is because of the falling rate of profit in usual business.

No I don't get it either but then I have never studied the Marxian theory of chess exchanges.

Presumably you start from the premise that all the pieces are of equal value, which would make combinations much less interesting.

The nearest I have come to Marxian chess is that on a few occasions I have played the Engelish opening

[Arshad Ali]

I'm writing my 800-page magnum opus (in German, of course) on the nature of exploitation in chess. How many times have I seen the word "exploit" in chess annotations? For example: "he exploits the open diagonal," "he exploits his opponent's piece inactivity" -- which suggests exploitation and short-changing is endemic to the game. This is why the Soviets promoted the game so much -- so as to better understand the capitalist mind-set.

[Clive Blackburn]

This is why the Soviets promoted the game so much -- so as to better understand the capitalist mind-set.

Except that the Soviets turned out to be even better at the game than the Capitalists!

[Arshad Ali]

Except that the Soviets turned out to be even better at the game than the Capitalists!

To understand this phenomenon better you have to read Trotsky's book, The Revolution Betrayed. Under Stalin and his successors, communism morphed into state capitalism. And it was in Stalin's era that Soviet chess became hegemonic. Had Marxist-Leninist principles remained alive in the USSR, the Soviets would have gone on losing one game after another.

The exploitation of pieces and pawns, forcibly conscripted into an army and then used for the benefit of the "player" (really the capitalist owner) has to cease. This will not come about until the pieces and pawns develop class consciousness, and become a class-for-themselves.

[Clive Blackburn]

I haven't read Stalin's book but I have read Animal Farm if that helps