/edu/ - Education

I'm not sure if it's already in this thread or not but can anyone point to an argument on why Hitler specifically chose the term "Socialist" in "national socialist"

more on alchemy:
apparently, it was jabir ibn hayyan (721-815 A.D.) that first defined the principles of sulphur and mercury as the "white" and "red" elixirs (t. "summa perfectionis") to which all phenomena corresponded (e.g. the four elements corresponded to the two principles), with suphur being a mixture of fire/earth and mercury being a mixture of water/air. only later do we have paracelsus in "opus paramirum" (1530) introduce the third principle of "salt", thus completing the understanding we have today between salt, mercury and sulphur. so then, we can say that while alchemy has its pre-history, it is only really completed in the 16th century by the establishment of the "tria prima".

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.

>>25362
>>25363
what a waste of words.

>>25366
prove him wrong retard

>>25396
he doesnt make a single coherent point to be responded to, i.e. its a "waste of words".

>>25397
I don't believe you can even understand the point. The point is that you're supposing there is some arbiter in Nature assigning these values, when this is all a political calculation made up by humans. Basically, the labor theory from Adam Smith was that none of the capital and stock would be worth anything if there weren't humans working at a basic level, who on some level wanted the products of labor that constitute this capital. People don't make products "randomly" or for spurious purposes, and if they are made for spurious purposes, they typically do not enter economic life. In other words, the management of things and products is much like the management of human beings, i.e. various types of unfree labor. That's why Adam Smith writes that it is command of labor rather than any natural generative power of labor that is valued (and bad economists muddled the words Adam Smith wrote to make bad arguments). Everything from Ricardo to Marx extrapolates based on that assumption that it is labor commanded that is valued, and Marx's contribution to this is the concept of "abstract labor", which if you read Marxism 101 you would understand. What Marx is writing about can quickly become esoteric and something removed from what actually happens; but for the manager of labor, this is what he has to do to exploit labor and keep his firm operational. He has to think in a manner that is increasingly divorced from what the capitalist wanted out of production in the first place, in ways that work against the very system that he agreed to enter as a producer.

There was an English teacher at my high school who had pic related on his wall

There was some chart used to go around some years ago recommending non-SJW more materialist feminist books, anybody got it and can post?

>>23759
>>23814
>>23816
>Mao should be obligatory for every left ideology
sounds about right, considering mao was a class collaborationist and communism is neither part of the left-right bourgeois divide nor an ideology

Ways the heat death of the universe might be survivable

Check out Anwar Shaikh's book. It's a self-contained revival of classical economics based on sound systematic reasoning and actual empirical evidence.
He also has a lecture series on YouTube if you prefer that: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go

>>22761
baby tier:
Marx: Wages Prices and Profit
Intermediate tier:
Capital volumes 1-3
advanced tier (requires linear algebra, probability, statistics and other math:
review: Mathematics for planning an economy by cibcom. Not specific to cybercom/planning but a good review of general math for political economy.
Farjoun and Machover – The Laws of Chaos
Sraffa – Production of Commodities by means of Commodities
Kalecki – Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy, 1933-1970,1971
Classical Econophysics by Allin Cottrell, Greg Michaelson, and Paul Cockshott

bump

Bump

A lolbert wrote this book on why he thinks education is bad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education

>>25374
im in the same situation

The similarity in freedom from being homeless or having expendable wealth is in the autonomy of a person deciding what to do based off of their environment.

>>25380
homelessness is a form of freedom

Any good anti-work books will do on why -sometimes- is good to be a NEET

Being a NEET is a bless and a curse at the same time, I think people wouldn't be NEETs if they actually was give access to self actualization jobs or a career that fit their personality

>>25381
One possible counterexample to funny line going down in aggregate that is funny except for the people eating each other in the streets (if it's not done sensibly with communism) is an enormous peak at 2040 because there's still the 2065-2075 implied by linear mapping of the peaks to 2075

>>25381
Never mind when humanoid robots would be useful. The problem with any such machine is that humans are cheaper and will always be cheaper. A fleet of robots requires regular service, engineers, managers. Also, you will find that how the robots are disciplined and managed is basically the same thing a manager would do to a human.

All of this talk has been an masturbatory fantasy of the petty-managerial fags, and they are fags. Anyone in management who is smart knows this idea will not work and is superfluous anyway. It would be cheaper to pay the humans their vacation time and let them have nice things again than to do this.

Now you may say "you can't treat humans like machines!!!111". The problem is, we did that. That was the dominant idea of the 20th century, and the whole society was organized on the idea that humans would be mechanical, thinking, rational actors. Any human who wasn't a "rational actor" regarding a clearly monstrous system was shamed and told they were guilty of numerous crimes that are not actual crimes, while these same honest humans saw murderers and rapers glorified by the same managers who did this to them.

If you actually did treat humans like machines for productive use, you would not have done the insane, Satanic thing that was done in the 20th century. Again, it would have been cheaper to give the human machines their vacation time, and not lie to them about everything with the utmost contempt. So much of the pointless, cruel suffering of the past 100 years resulted from nothing more than pig-headed, malicious ignorance of the managers and the political class, who ignored that humans have actual material and spiritual wants. Those humans were told "you're just machines, you're just animals", again while being told they have to exalt murderers and rapers. All of this has always an exultant shouting of the eugenists, of political elitists, and other such faggotry. It is not a reasonable plan for society and it was built so that humanity would never, ever know what that is like.

With all of that said, if you did have humanoid robots, or more generally effective multi-tasking autonomous robots capable of either thinking in a way similar to humans or at least a worth emulation of such, those robots would not replace humans. They would work alongside humans, and every worker would either command or be integrated with robotic workers (both of which amount to the same thing, since all of the work tasks these robots do exist to serve some human interest… the robots are not doing this for their own existence or some sense of themselves, and before you say "you can't say that is a given about humans", clearly the petty-managerial fags and ruling elite do this to perpetuate their own existence at our expense, and they take sadistic delight in telling us we're selected to die and that we will never be allowed anything ever again. The sadism was the soul of petty-managerialism more than any productive outcome the sadism made for the world.

Above all, the petty-managerial dogma insists that workers must be severed forcibly from their tools, from all connection to reality. It is a wholly Satanic cosmology. This is obviously a failed system, but none of us are allowed to say no to it.

One other thing about a robotic co-worker; it would be the bestest buddy a human worker could ever have, if it weren't programmed by disgusting assholes. Robots are cool and don't start stupid shit for drama. Amazingly, of all of the ways humans were made into robots, they didn't think to suppress the obviously disgusting backstabbing behavior of humans. Instead the machine essentialized every malicious thing humans did and insisted you were supposed to "respect" it, so that fag managers can keep stealing more stuff and hiring their buddies.

I now know why all of you are so mad
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-4078

>>21138
Belongs in >>>/hobby/5031

He was great, he made fruit trees grow in Moscow

Irrelevant link dump https://academic.oup.com/plcell/advance-article/doi/10.1093/plcell/koae130/7658667?login=false