/edu/ - Education

>>25648
Really interesting stuff but maybe field guide isnt the one im looking for.

>>6530
A post with this much strawmanning might as well be called a wicker man

>>25631
Learn Chinese or Russian anon

>>25634
why russian? i cant even travel to the country. i thought about chinese but i don't think im interested enough in it despite liking their gubbermint a lot

>>25461
this is a godsend if you already know a latin language

is Norwegian worth learning first if you want to learn German, (time is not a problem I'm unemployed and can learn them over summer break) or should i just learned German without knowing another Germanic language(English not included obviously).

>>25657
The most similar language to German is surely Dutch. That said, learning similar languages at the same time makes one mix up vocabulary a lot, so…

In Chapter 1, Section 5, Baudrillard begins by a description of the ontology of labour as the self-determined essence of man, by various citations, including Marcuse. This is the pinnacle of the Marxist concept, of Labour as the means by which man is subject over his personified essence in a dialectical manner (e.g. Entailing reversal in political economy, where his objectivity becomes the medium of his own subject, i.e. Man worships himself in money, rather than the other way round). In this way, man imparts himself into nature, and thus "humanises" nature, as Baudrillard says. With further citation from Marcuse, Baudrillard diagnoses Marxism as inhabiting the "protestant work ethic", by reference to Weber; that if Labour is the means by which abstract Man "creates" himself, then his very Being is determined by his subjection to productivity in labour:
<this aberrant sanctification of work has been the secret vice of Marxist political and economic strategy from the beginning.
After this, Baudrillard cites a brilliant excerpt from Walter Benjamin on the folly of Marxism's divinity of Labour (t. "Poesie et Revolution", 1971) which exposes the nonsense of esteeming Man's Being as a symptom of his capacity to labour (which, we must remember, was also the slogan above Auschwitz, "Arbeit Macht Frei"). Even "play" is defined by Marcuse as a "useless" product of a rationalised labour. Thus as Baudrillard sees it:
<In effect, the sphere of play is defined as the fulfillment of human rationality, the dialectical culmination of man's activity of incessant objectification of nature and control of his exchanges with it. It presupposes the full development of productive forces ; it "follows in the footsteps" of the reality principle and the trans­formation of nature. Marx clearly states that it can flourish only when founded on the reign of necessity. Wishing itself beyond labor but in its continuation, the sphere of play is always merely the esthetic sublimation of labor's constraints […] Work and non-work: here is a "revolutionary" theme. It is undoubtedly the most subtle form of the type of binary, structural opposition discussed above. The end of the end of exploitation by work is this reverse fascination with non-work, this reverse mirage of free time (forced time-free time, full time­ empty time: another paradigm that fixes the hegemony of a temporal order which is always merely tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

i thought u said u quit leftypol

beware psychoanalysis. lest you end up like an ineffectual crank that preaches eternal circular analysis of the current state of things, like zizek, a liberal, like contrapoints, or whatever the fuck happened to jordan peterson

Teste

>>25644
contrapoints and jordan peterson hate Lacan tho

>>25591
It's eugenics-kun, so yes. His schtick is to pontificate at people and disregard all criticism as a narcissistic coping mechanism due to his abused childhood.

>>25574
You're thinking in circles to "justify" a price which really has nothing to do with political economy. Prices are set by merchants in competition and agreed upon by purchasers, who may haggle over price. There is a long history of haggling and side deals in everything a merchant does, and there is no law by which this process is "solved" or automated because the conditions of haggling are individual and contingent on things that are not themselves predicted and solvable. If you are claiming that you can solve haggling as a mathematical problem and account for all potentials, you are making claims about economic life that cannot be defended and claims about human behavior that require a lot of assumptions that were never part of anything in political economy.

For the worker, none of this has even been a voluntary arrangement. Workers had no rights, political or otherwise, and the idea that they did would be absurd in the 19th century. Workers do not negotiate as if they were equal agents. They have a knife at their throat and are made to dance like monkeys. The interview process is about the same as what pederasts do to coach a young boy when making him a catamite. That's what managerialism does. It's disgusting and no free man would ever think such a ritual is something he would do as an equal partner. Everything about that arrangement is the exact opposite of free agency and designed to be so. So, for the workers, nothing about political economy pertains to them or their struggle. The struggle of the workers is a purely political or moral one, and it has no direct economic value because the conditions workers require for their lives to be meaningful are never translated into money. The workers want to not be tortured, want living conditions of the goods in kind, and most of all do not want any law that suggests that their feelings and thoughts will be automated and decided for them.

I don't think the concept of a free society for the workers are admissible in the 21st century. That's how far gone we are. You can't even say the most basic idea of what that would mean without it retreated to the Malthusian, Satanic principles that now govern human society… at least, for the slaves. For the managers and those who hold freedom, labor is a joke. The present slave system is absolute and dominates everything humans do now, and you keep letPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anyway, the reason commodities have "set prices" is because there is no great secret about how commodities are produced, and in principle commodities are freely reproducible. The only condition on their price of production is how efficiently they can be built and the cost of raw materials extracted from the land. The labor cost is variable and ideally it will be set to zero (the worker is told they are in debt to an abstraction for perpetuity and that this is "justified" regardless of any material condition, and so the worker's existence is purely a material fact to be set to the operations of the machine). There is no inherent "value of labor" in that sense. All such value would be taken on by the commander of the slave-human machine, and that is what has taken place. Those are the present relations of production, thrown in your face every day to remind you this never changes. I don't know why people insist on this "me wantee" sentimental theory that is at odds with everything the society says about you and what your own theory implies would be the inevitable outcome. It gets crazier the longer the Lying goes on.

If workers were free men with souls and something to live for, none of this arrangement would be tolerated. We would immediately resolve that the hitherto known arrangement of institutions is wholly intolerable and the workers would take back their lives. No pretense of a republic would remain, and this would be a permanent and irrevocable break. There would be no price-setting market in that sense. No one would agree to free trade.

(If you really want to get what Marx was writing with Capital, he was writing a defense of the slave power, because that's what his backers wanted. If free trade is contradictory and Marx makes certain that there is no "other system" based on goodwill or an abrogation of the assumptions that have ruled humanity, the only other system you can have is despotic slavery, the "natural end state" of human civilization according to such a theory… and that theory is picked up by everyone else who believe in the same outcome for their own reasons.

Le merchants rob both the producer and the buyer.

>>25651
The merchant's activity is wholly managerial regarding the products or wealth involved. There isn't any inherent robbery in this, because there is a way products move from point to point, and that is a considerable problem for any society. We are told that we have to accept forced ignorance about where anything comes from, and the merchant navigates that for his own purposes. If producers and consumers had a direct line to each other, it would be trivial to deal in kind and there wouldn't be any need of money as such, and this has precedent in history and exists today. Today the monetary unit is pretty much made up and propped up by printing a lot of ostensible dollars to suggest it works. The real problem isn't that money is so compelling, but that money is specifically deployed to value making humans suffer. The merchant could very easily translate his goods into some other enterprise. He is not ideologically wed to any particular system. Further, every participant in a market society becomes a merchant. He is never reduced to a pure producer or consumer, and producers are themselves consumers for their operations to continue. For the consumer, their want was never monetary or economic at its core, and they are not obligated to hold any particular attitude about consumption or their own existence. The consumer doesn't measure his worth by some productive unit or capital because that's not what he's there to do. If you take a teacher who is a consumer, their function is not productive, and they are only made into managers because of the logic and ethos of the present society. The true functions of education and raising children are carried out for purposes that are partially political, but mostly they are carried out because these are things humans do to live and grow and interact with the world, all of which require some material input to continue and which produce a wholly immaterial output. You could in theory reduce all of human existence to processes and treat them as a great economic clockwork, but this vaporizes any of the purposes humans hold and reduces their existence to material flotsam that is itself inconsequential. The universe does not care about our feelings or any conceit we hold about ourselves or society, and if we really think we are "above God" in that sense, the world will crush humans and defeat them and should do so. We already knew Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>25551
>Pagans never made stuff!
Romans ruled like 3/5 of the world under polytheism lol

>>25447
What version?

bable

>>25592
The bibble

>>25472
Holy shit, dude, you sound exactly like the guy in the beggining of "Master and Margarita", lol

I love it