/edu/ - Education

>>22345
Just finished this one. Can't believe it's recommended here. If you have a /g/ schizo background skip it because you already know it's all botnet. Zuboff is a lib appropriating Marxist terminology and concludes the book with a call to "just voot against it" completely ignoring the structure of bourgeois democracy. She spends a chapter glazing Robert Conquest's demonization of the soviet union, and to top it off she scaremongers about China, conflating (now defunct) credit bureaus with every lie about the social credit system.

>>22444
Good summary wish I hadn't wasted my time on the book. I was hoping for concrete analysis, but

THE VIDEO OF HILLARY CLINTON COMPLAINING ABOUT CHINA BEING A TOP-DOWN CONTROLLED ECONOMY PLEASE

Didn't you post a few months ago? I rember something similiar I thought you definitely were going to med school. Maybe it was someone else

>fairly normal life, but im extremely bitter against (succubi) m*dels, the glamour, ease,wealth, luxury and globe-trotting they are gifted just cause MUH FACE


This is a dumb reason.
I don't feel any jealousy towards those kind of people.
Those celebs have to deal with groomers and corporate assholes trying to steal their rightful pay.

>>24461
if you think you can do it, do it. medicine is pretty safe thing to study as a career, you just need to keep up the effort.

You can do it anon.

>>24461
If you work in a hospital, your coworkers will be people like these.

marx doesnt stipulate this (since he's a bad writer) but the LTV of which he investigates only concerns certain goods, as noted by ricardo:
<In speaking then of commodities, of their exchangeable value, and of the laws which regulate their relative prices, we mean always such commodities only as can be increased in quantity by the exertion of human industry, and on the production of which competition operates without restraint.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch01.htm
for this reason, ricardo also says that with monopoly (or "imperfect competition") the laws of value are indefinitely suspended. so marx's theory of value only concerns commodities which may be freely reproduced by labour and which are subject to competition in a market.

This asinine argument is obsessed with the Austrian School definition of price (always returning to "me wantee") and insists you're supposed to automatically accept it after being beaten over the head with enough idiocy. The labor theory of value, and the discussion of value going back to Adam Smith, was about value rather than prices. The prices of things are set by merchants in response to what they understand the respective value of those things to be. Every merchant makes calculations of value, and if they're operating with the same information, they're going to make the same calculation of value based on those objective criteria; that is, they're going to notice that manufacturing some widget requires the same inputs, that the most effective labor for producing those widgets and the most effective system for producing widgets is expected to produce so much under those conditions, that the demand for widgets is no great secret to everyone in the market, that the utilities of these widgets are describable to everyone to the best of their knowledge. That is to say, value is judged by rational agents based on a lot of objective criteria, if it were a question of utility. But, the most relevant problem for the producers is that they require human labor and exploitation for their enterprises to continue as productive enterprises. The entire reason money exists, the reason why we have price tags in the first place, is because this is how humans are exploited, and what humans have to abide until some other system of exploitation is devised. If prices were not related to wage labor or some form of bonded labor (i.e. slavery, which always has definite costs for its maintenance), there would be no real reason to have the intermediary of prices at all.

It gets more complicated when you really think about what is done with money, instead of believing money is literally made of magic. Everything about the asinine Austrian School arguments requires magical thinking on top of magical thinking and insists you have to "respect" any of it. It's absurd if you step away from their retarded shibboleths and ask yourself what truly, really happens in all of the affairs of a capitalist firm and the wider affairs of a market, of society, of the state. On some level, the economic matter is never strictly about money or a wage, and it's never "just a contract". What isn't arguable is that workers are either paid a wage, or the holder of labor has to pay so much to commaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

As for the actual question: Marx's law of value pertained to commodities, freely reproducible objects (and so they are not original artworks, unless you have devised a scheme by which "original art" is itself a commodified service to be assigned a price tag, which in a sense is something we have done… and as a result, commissioned artwork has a fairly low going price, dependent on the availability of starving artists who will create furry porn, and ignoring for a moment that furry porn is produced by a cartel of sorts that fixes prices for their own benefit and recognize that they shouldn't undercut their fellow furry porn creators).

Nearly everything about "luxury" goods is explained by the prevalence of cartels and price fixing, which would be the thing Adam Smith calls "a conspiracy against the public, or some contrivance to raise prices". People often try to forget what Adam Smith was really describing, and sometimes Marx himself is doing this or willfully ignoring what political economy entailed.

It should also be remembered that Marx describes the law of value to explain how political economy was nonsensical on its own terms; that if you actually did this, you are missing a lot of very relevant details about what actually happens in capitalist society. Nothing in the free trade theory mentions primitive accumulation, which is why Marx spends chapters describing this process.

Generally though, the reason free trade is allowed, the reason why this system can work, is because price fixing is mitigated and the producers are competing to provide goods for the lowest price, without concern for any external want. Obviously if you can produce goods for cheaper than your competitor, you have an advantage against them. You can sell your goods at the same price as your competitor, who can't do shit against you except try to emulate your ability to produce the same good for cheaper. So, if some starving artist says "I will create furry porn for basically free, as long as I receive a diet of Hot Pockets and am free to make you more furry porn", he's going to have an advantage over a competitor whose needs are greater, say if he has a family to feed. You can see where this heads, once society has degraded enough that the family and even the most basic expectations of human existence can be cannibalized. You're never going to compete with people who live on practically nothing, are used to living on nothing, and have no expectationPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>25332
What an esoteric post. I just don't get how learning Newtonian physics would result to everything you've said.

>>25333
Learning is not education. I can learn on my own time about Isaac Newton, but none of that is education. Education is not the act of the student, but the teacher's admission of that student's knowledge and proof to society. I can think and know whatever I want, but if I am not socially valid, nothing I say or think matters. I can say the truth until my face is blue and they'll just say "retarded" until I give up. In this manner, humanity has continued throughout its recorded history. This never can change. The only thing that can change is that other humans ask themselves if this is the society they want. Education has nothing to do with meritocracy or technocracy, in any way that requires education to be anything else. Education is at its core an aristocratic function, and it is in some sense an act of labor. The lowest class as a rule is barred from education, which is exactly my point. No one cares if a retard thoroughly understands where Newton came from. A retard is always retarded, forever. That is the rule.

>>25253
Has anyone here read this book? How do you debunk it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education

You guys pay for education?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna's_Archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Library

>if you read locke (1690) he's a schmittian fascist (1932) AND an ancap (1963)
it seems that history means nothing to you.

Nietzsche is for the failsons specifically

>>25165
Are you 15?

>>25223
Obviously I meant that Schmit and the ancaps elaborated on tendencies already pre-existing in liberalism.

Fascists use philosophical and intellectual pretexts because, due to their ideology, they completely fail to understand the richness and nuance of discourse. Unfortunately, you do not offer a nuanced perspective on the issue; Mill's anti-slavery stance would have been interesting in this specific context. Furthermore, please elaborate on your statement: according to which philosophy or definition do you really see fascism, with examples? Locke refers to a limitation of the state's room for maneuver, which is indeed damaging, but these are founding texts, and what followed was not the intention of their authors.

So, Continental Sloppa is irrelevant to socialism theory, bros?

>>25156
>this scientist believed in le holy science of dialectical materialism ergo he used dialectics
by this logic catholic scientists used catholicism to do analysis too
engels' dialectics of nature was bullshit too btw

>>25157
its plenty relevant considering socialism is the bourgeois ideology in opposition to communism

Continental philosophy is just philosophy, whereas analytic philosophy more generally refers to a specific methodological approach and system of logic which, by its own constraints, can only describe a specific portion of consciousness and reality. It's unfair and generally incorrect to think of the divide as being incompatible (see: Wittgenstein). As for where to start, it really depends on what you're interested in. I think everything still basically begins and ends with Plato, but if you're interested in aesthetics (which I think the "Continental tradition" is unquestionably better equipped to detail), reading Spinoza, Henri Bergson, Gaston Bachelard, and Merleau-Ponty would be fun for you. In terms of critique, there's still no replacement for Hegel and Adorno, although I think Heidegger's essays are also essential texts

>>25157
No, a lot of it is very cucked but their analysis of the way capitalism and its mechanisms of control have evolved are important, and even if people like Foucault were straight up reactionary sometimes, their ideas can be re-oriented.
Continental philosophers, specially the french ones, sometimes write in a style thats annoying and assume the readers know a lot of stuff that was very popular in the time and place they were writing, and it filters people. A way to get around this problem is to start with their most accesible works which are usually transcriptions of courses they did.
Also "continental philosophy" isnt really a thing, its a term made up by anglos to put a bunch of very different schools of thought in the same bag. If you were more specific about what authors or schools are you interested in maybe I could help.
>>25155
You are a retard.

>>16630
Thank you for rare theory post

https://gauthierroussilhe.com/en/articles/how-to-use-computing-power-faster
Courtesy of >>>/tech/31265

>>16630
Can't this tendency just be counteracted by producing a vast amount of new non-capital producing sectors and a ton of consumer junk?

The rulers printed lots and lots of fictitious money from 2000 on, and the way money is used is not at all like it was in the 19th century. There is no actual labor or value backing this fictitious money. The reality is that the past 60 years have seen a policy of deliberate and crushing economic contraction. This is something the rulers will tell you is the goal. They do not want a productive economy and speak of how such an economy is evil.

Under the present order, "profit" was replaced with the destruction of human beings. The more humans suffer and are destroyed, the greater the success of the present system. The most glorified firms and professions are those tasked with the destruction of the people. That is what is incentivized and what bonuses are paid for. You are not paid for producing things or any industriousness. If you think that is the problem, you quickly realize the industrial needs of humanity are either already met, or have been deliberately neglected and could be met very easily if only this were allowed. Most of the productive economy has been centralized under a few really big firms or conglomerates that fix prices, such that there is not the imagined competition between many firms that drove the profit motive. (The truth of course is that the drive towards mechanization in the 19th century was never the result of free enterprise or "chaos", and you can already see collusion and price fixing then to protect monopolies and corner the market.)

A naive reading of Capital is wholly inappropriate, and wasn't even really how things worked in the 19th century. The TFRP was about a tendency inherent in mechanization itself; that as more of capital were comprised of machinery and "dead labor", it would become harder to squeeze more profit out of the system without outright cannibalization of the people and the firms involved. This is exactly what happened, intended beforehand and glorified. In the 19th century, a naive faith in the society to produce of its own accord productive machinery was somewhat effective, since there were a lot of men looking to make something of themselves and they could only do so by making a product that was not readily available. By the 20th century, this slowed down to a crawl and was controlled by the commanding heights of the bourgeois, who did not want "new men" and deliberately set out to crush them. In the final decades of the 20th century, it was actively reversed. Now the men of business spePost too long. Click here to view the full text.