Şunu aradınız:: times have changed, but so have i (İngilizce - Farsça)

times have changed .
زمانه عوض شده .

but then , so have i .
اما الان من اينطور هستم .

how many times have i told you .
. چند بار باید بهت بگم .

well , so have i . yeah .
خوب منم داشتم جدا .

' a million, billion times have i said that.
من میلیون‌ها میلیون بار این مسئله را مطرح کرده‌ام.

how many times have i told y ou a million .
چند بار بهت گفتم . يک ميليون .

how many times have i said this? if his majesty meets hae mo su,
چند بار اينو گفتم؟ كه اگر عاليجناب هايموسو رو ببينه

that alone should guarantee my entry . how many times have i told you .
همون به تنهايي بايد ورود منو تضمين کنه من چند بار بهت گفتم .

where is it written who says so have i ordered it .
اينو کجا نوشته کي گفته من اين دستورو دادم .

capital from p. 145 in social theory re-wired 2e the wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,” its unit being a single commodity. our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.1 from p. 147 in social theory re-wired 2e we see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production2. each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class. commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. the value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour-time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “as values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour-time3.” from p. 148 in social theory re-wired 2e a commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties4. so far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. it is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. the form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every-day thing, wood. but, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. it not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than “table-turning” ever was.5 from p. 149 in social theory re-wired 2e whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? clearly from this form itself. the equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; the measure of the expenditure of labour-power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour; and finally, the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products.6 a commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour7 ; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. this is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses …. there is a physical relation between physical things. but it is different with commodities. there, the existence of the things quâ commodities, and the value-relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connexion with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. there it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things.8 in order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. in that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. so it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. this i call the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.9
ثروت آن جوامعی که شیوه تولید سرمایه داری در آنها حاکم است، خود را به عنوان «انباشت عظیمی از کالاها» معرفی می کند که واحد آن یک کالای واحد است. بنابراین تحقیقات ما باید با تحلیل یک کالا آغاز شود. کالا، در وهله اول، شیئی خارج از ماست، چیزی که با ویژگیهای خود خواسته های انسان را به نوعی برآورده می کند. ماهیت چنین خواسته هایی، مثلاً از معده سرچشمه می گیرند یا از روی خیال، هیچ تفاوتی ندارند.