/edu/ - Education

i just learned how many pop music stars are having their minds controlled by The Trumpist Propaganda Industry™ and being forced to promote the trad-values ideology against their will. Luckily, i never listened to a "trendy" pop song since 2021 and i am feeling more enlightened after watching a Gattsu video

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

We can also compare Marx's structuralism against Baudrillard's poststructuralism, by looking at simulacrum. Marx insists upon a real relation in symbols:
<The fact that money can, in certain functions, be replaced by mere symbols of itself, gave rise to that other mistaken notion, that it is itself a mere symbol […] Lawyers started long before economists the idea that money is a mere symbol, and that the value of the precious metals is purely imaginary. This they did in the sycophantic service of the crowned heads, supporting the right of the latter to debase the coinage, during the whole of the middle ages, by the traditions of the Roman Empire and the conceptions of money to be found in the Pandects.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch02.htm
<the issue of paper money must not exceed in amount the gold (or silver as the case may be) which would actually circulate if not replaced by symbols […] Paper money is a token representing gold or money. The relation between it and the values of commodities is this, that the latter are ideally expressed in the same quantities of gold that are symbolically represented by the paper. Only in so far as paper money represents gold, which like all other commodities has value, is it a symbol of value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
Thus, money can only be "real" if it directly represents a proportion of gold or silver, to Marx. This distinction is older than Marx, however, such as in the work of Adam Smith (1776), who distinguishes between the "real" and "nominal" values of currency based in their relationship to exchange. For example, a currency which is depreciated by excess, loses its real value, while preserving its nominal (or "face" value). £1 is still £1, but may purchase less per unit. The £1 is constant, while its purchasing power is variable. This variability is the measure of its "real" value, since it represents what it can really exchange for, not what it denominates. For example, being a millionaire in America makes one really rich, while being a millionaire in Zimbabwe makes one poor. Equally, being a millionaire yesterday meant more than being a mPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Baudrillard:
>In the distinction between exchange value and use value, Marxism shows its strength but also its weakness. The presupposition of use value- the hypothesis of a concrete value beyond the abstraction of exchange value, a human purpose of the commodity in the moment of its direct relation of utility for a subject- is only the effect of the sys­tem of exchange value, a concept produced and developed by it […] He does not radicalize the schema to the point of reversing this appearance and revealing use value as produced by the play of exchange value […] In other words, the signified "use value" here is still a code effect, the final precipitate of the law of value.
<Mirror of Production, Chapter 1, Section 2
Thus, "use-value" is essentially a "value in use" (as per Smith). Marx makes a category error by stating, for example, that "a use-value can exist, without being a value", since he (in the german text), distinguishes "use-value" ("Gebrauchswert") from "utility" ("Nützlichkeit"). If indeed, as Baudrillard properly concludes, use-value is the symptom of the form of value (e.g. money) relating value to itself, then use-value is an effect, not a cause, and so cannot exist outside of the commodity form, but is only within it. As a "code effect" then, use-value is signified by its constitutive status as commodity (e.g. a use-value is only produced in being subjectively determined as an exchange-value, or a product of abstract labour, concretely expressed. Thus as Marx states, useless labour "does not count", and so cannot precede its abstraction. This leads to great confusion, in the same sense that Engels footnotes, separating "labour" from "work" in itself. The originary abstraction of value of course makes sense from an empirical outlook, where "labour-time" as measure of value is obviously accounted from wages, *not* the other way round, owing to its particular historicity, not a transhistorical essence, as Marx and Engels assume. Baudrillard quotes Pierre Naville on this point, in Section 3). Here is further controversy, since if use-value is only within the commodity form (i.e. the form of value), then is our "imaginary" value equally an imaginary use-value…?

Baudrillard offers his political critique:
>Failing to conceive of a mode of social wealth other than that founded on labor and production, Marxism no loPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

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

>>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

>>24204
>Tudeh was a minor player in the actual revolution in 1979. The Soviets actually quit funding them because they thought they were a useless non-entity with little actual influence in Iran.
This misunderstands Abrahamian's perspective. By the time of the Iranian Revolution, the Tudeh had indeed become marginalized, but this wasn't always so. I find his focus on the Tudeh interesting precisely because it is important to analyze the historical developments that caused its demise, all while Iran continued and intensified its process of industrialization, modernization and, crucially, subordination to imperialist interests.

It was never a bad idea for a Marxist to ask oneself the question "what the fuck just happened?" after a religious national-bourgeois revolution when conditions were ripening for a communist one. In Iran, often considered the birthplace of modern Islamist politics as a mass movement, the question is yet more urgent.

>>24516
I feel like its possible the Tudeh party was never as popular as people like Abrahamian tell us it was and this is a result of historians like him focusing too much on Tudeh at the expense of other groups in Iran. Abrahamian is an old fashioned new left Marxist and for him the victory of a socialist faction is how history should have played out but didn't. So he goes looking for the biggest Marxist faction (Tudeh) and tries to ask "why did it fail?" and you do that you wind up developing tunnel vision.

>It was never a bad idea for a Marxist to ask oneself the question "what the fuck just happened?" after a religious national-bourgeois revolution when conditions were ripening for a communist one. In Iran, often considered the birthplace of modern Islamist politics as a mass movement, the question is yet more urgent.
The problem is the way in which Marxists approach this history. They are too teleological and misapply Marx's theories. Marx warned the Russian socialists not to take his history of capitalist development as a universal model that could be applied to Russia because his own work was based on studies of Germany, France, and Britain. But Marxists try to interpret Iranian history through Marx's history of Western Europe. "Well, socialist revolution is the next stage, so why didn't it happen? Maybe Iran was too feudal? was Khomeini a bourgeois nationalist or a fascist?" These are the wrong kinds of questions to be asking because Iran isn't Western Europe and stickers like "feudal" or "bourgeois nationalist" aren't something you can just paste onto every human society.

Iran also is a problem for Marxist historians because it defies their theories of revolution. Before 1979, the Iranian economy was growing, inequality was a serious issue but poverty was decreasing etc. The revolution wasn't motivated by socioeconomic grievances. Khomeini himself once declared that 'we didn't overthrow the Shah because of the price of bread.' Before 1978, US diplomats saw Iran as an island of stability. Nobody predicted the revolutionary outbreak between 1978 and 1979. I'd also say that Islamist mass politics really begun in the 1910s, anti-colonial movements based on Islam go all the way back to the 1900s. Foucault's writing on Iran have always been controversial because he pointed these things out. Islam was a drivingPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>24203
Why are you sperging out at someone you don't even disagree with?

bump for relevancy :v)

>>25417
if you try making sense of japanese by comparing it to other languages it will only make it more difficult

https://sakubi.neocities.org/ some resource ocmpilation for learning japanese, it already assumes you know the basics

i wish i could choose a language to learn

>>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

New Ancient Americas video on the Mesoamerican ballgame

>>25618
i was shocked to find out that rice had also been domesticated in the americas after watching this video
https://www.science.org/content/article/rice-so-nice-it-was-domesticated-thrice
and then i couldn't stop thinking about how many other plants/animals may have been domesticated in the americas but were lost after colonization

>>25626
It raises questions about how we'd be able to tell if a species had been domesticated and later feralized, or whether we would think to look for that. If you look at the wild types of many cultivars, there is not much to suggest they would be serviceable once domesticated.

>>25093
- The Very Hungry Caterpillar
- ASPCA Ultimate Cat Care Manual
- Max Stirner's Art and Religion
- Marx's stuff
- The rest of Max Stirner's stuff
- Main story in arknights
- Hegel's stuff
- Side stories in arknights
- The Very Hungry Caterpillar (again)

>>25094
What if I want to learn League of Legends lore?

>>25094
ok now could you be kind and sincere with me? where do I start, where do I go?

What're Hegels most important works according to you guys? What's the craziest interpretation you've seen of it?

>>25620
the science of logic is hegel's most concise work.
and marx clearly styles his critique of political economy on it.