/edu/ - Education

>>24184
Finished death of a salesman. I bet it’s better live.

Since the "military industrial complex" began, technological advance has essentially frozen. The last novel technology was the laser, and nothing much came of it. Biology is hopelessly ideological, and physics was actively sabotaged because general physics knowledge would have made clear the method and practice of this ritual blood sacrifice. It would be too obvious to not see what happens. By placing all technological advance under the national security state, the lockouts against any technological advance that would impede ritual sacrifice were permanent and irreversible. As the natsec state was locked in by the 1960s, technological progress has completely frozen, and in key areas it has actively regressed. The longer this goes on, the greater the terminal decline, with its end result, predicted in advance, being terminal insanity of the race and all of its members.

Unless, someone really has a mind to change it and asks why we came to this sorry impasse. Everyone who does that is violently attacked and ridiculed. Anything against ritual blood sacrifice is "retarded" automatically, even though the dogmatic "science" of aristocracy is so pants-on-head retarded that it is insulting to even humanity's limited intelligence.

Before you say "but muh computers", the computer itself does not contain any novel technology. They don't operate on magic. Integrated circuits are an advance in industrial technique, but they are really very small versions of the ponderous vacuum-tube computing machines, which themselves were poor replacements of human clerical labor. I don't discount what the computer would have been, if humanity weren't a Satanic race given over to ritual sacrifice. But, if we were going to use the computer for good, most of what happened since 1970 would not have happened. Computerization should have entailed the end of the price system and most of the lockouts, but the ruling elite of humanity decided to use the computer for the exact opposite, and succeeded at "Germanizing" the thought process so that the computer was granted mystical properties it does not possess.

What really made the computer a remarkable piece of technology is that it suggested that a general theory of technology rooted in rationality and scientific inquiry was possible for the first time. Past "general theories of technology" were found in political economy and were one part moral philosophy and mired in the political intrigues of the human race; or they were makeshift economic plans that sometimes were imposed by the command of states, and sometimes were worked out locally by whomever had to manage something. Computerization would have entailed the end of managerialism, and thus of many of the lockouts maintained so that ritual blood sacrifice and vice can be protected.

This thread went from a simple philosophy discussion to some of the most DIABOLICAL Trvth Nvkes I have ever seen on Leftypol. Well done, anti-german anon

>>24104
>>24103
>>24102
>>24101
>>24087
OK, I'll bite.
What do you mean by Ritual Blood Sacrifice?
What is the function of Ritual Blood Sacrifice among humans? And how is it related to class structure?

I've suspected something similar for a while now. I've read Frazer's Golden Bough, so I understand the cultural and historical importance of Ritual Blood Sacrifice with respect to Kingship and hierarchic authority. Frazer writes as if the Ritual Sacrifice is sublimated into other cultural practices as a civilization developes. However, you seem to be implying that Ritual Blood Sacrifice has not only continued to be practiced in its more primal form by the ruling class, but that the superstructure of Bourgeoisie Capitalist Society (as well as its predecessors) is, in its primary function, an altar upon which to make burnt offerings, that the sweet savor thereof may be pleasing unto the Lord.
In this case, the offerings are not just the masses of humanity, but even the earth itself. "The Lord" as a signifier, implies not only the "god" of the old priesthood, but also the ruling class itself. Insofar as the superstructure of society reinforces itself, the act of Blood Sacrifice is also made as a ritual to facilitate its continued performance, hence its role in reinforcing class roles and hierarchy. But you seem to be going a step farther, implying that Ritual Blood Sacrifice is a fundamental part of human culture, therefore any other social superstructure that can be erected, can only be built through the process of Ritual Blood Sacrifice, up to and including communism. This is prefigured by the story of the King of the Wood.

While I don't necessarily agree with it, the argument is compelling. You talk about the role of Eugenics and German social engeering, and you also hint at secret knowledge of human origins. It reminds me of the teachings of Yacub, propagated by the Honorable Elijah Mohammed (peace be upon him). Taking this together with J. Sakai's analysis of Euro-American sePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>24166
How do you use mind maps?

>>24174
Mind mapping is basically flow charts for how the brain thinks. Start with something in the middle. Like Karl Marx. Then from there, around it, write related things you’ve been studying, labor theory of value, cool beard, super structure, etc. then from those points write related points to those things that are more specific. It takes advantage of spatial and relational memory centers of the brain when compared to a normal list of information.

>>24178
Is it for revising material that you already know? Or why would you make a mind map of Marx?

>>24179
You can use it to brainstorm with others, but yes, it’s mostly a way to organize recently learned information. It’s useful to med and law students who have to learn whole textbooks for exams. It’s like making a memory palace on paper… almost. I mean, just try it out right now. Get out a sheet of paper and a pen and think of a subject you know quite a bit about and chart something out. Dark souls lore. Moby dick. Lies about the dprk. Anything.

Read from the top of the page in a southern direction, when you run out of words, proceed to the next page (usually located towards the east in English texts) and repeat until you run out of pages to read. You may need to do this procedure multiple times from beginning to end if you feel the information is not sinking in.

Why is labor allowed to be hated but not education?

Amazing how people will readily question the need for labor discipline but will get offended over questioning school discipline

Labor disciplines itself when set to some task. If you don't do the job assigned to you, if you don't pull your weight, you won't work at some place. The other workers do not want you there.

All of this was premised on the idea that workers know how to work and didn't need to be told. That is the most basic rule. The workers in charge means exactly that; that there is a body among the workers that handles disciplinary action.

The moment you introduce some technocratic management from outside, where the incentives are not the workers' own, you've already detracted from the task of labor itself. This is how you shit up a workplace, create intrigues, and get the slaves to attack each other. It's always for that purpose. It is premised on the belief that workers are evil and stupid and will just destroy everything if they're not managed by a boss that is detached from labor and sees labor as a purely desultory and miserable act.

Sadly, the mangers were proven true, and this happened mostly because the workers really were evil, because they were taught that evil is stronger than any goodness in the world. If workers do not want society, then what exactly are they doing among society? The genuine aim of the laboring classes is to be free of overbearing management, and they will work towards that aim. Once established, they turned viciously against other workers and the lowest class, having established security for themselves and their buddies. There is no law of labor itself or "law of nature" that required this to happen. That is how history for humans turned out, for reasons humans understood well but that "the theory" insisted wasn't happening as it was happening.

If however the question assumes that workers do this purely out of incompetence rather than malice, that is a faulty assumption. Anyone who works learns by heart what is necessary for whatever work task they are set to. If they do not know this, they will have to learn, or they will surely sink. The malice of labor against other laborers was already established in humanity since time immemorial. What management desired was to intensify that malice and glorify it, naturalize it, and essentialize it. If that was accomplished, then any impulse of the workers to band together out of necessity would be permanently negated—and so it was done, and the workers could only watch as they were set against each other by intrigues and schemes, and then were told it was illegal Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

There's more to discipline than punishing misbehavior. It's more a question of how to effectively motivate workers to work more.

>>12574
>Of course more remuneration for working longer hours and odd hours is something to be kept. And it makes sense to have some element in the salary that is performance-based as long as that performance can be unambiguously measured. Like carrying sacks… I have to admit I don't think most jobs are unambiguous like that. Some bonus might be distributed by co-workers voting on who should get it.
You are a social democrat

>>24181
The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor.

Here's a primer on Anarkata and contemporary black anarchism.

Afrofuturist Abolitionists of the Americas

Anarkata: A Statement
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarkata

Diggin’ In: On the Nature of Black Power (An Intro To Anarkata Thought)
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/afrofuturist-abolitionists-of-the-americas-diggin-in-on-the-nature-of-black-power

Mapping our Legacy: The Narrative of Black Freedom Struggle
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-mapping-our-legacy


Black Autonomy Federation
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Pan-Africanism is really Utopian at this point in time. You might as well be talking about pan-slavism or pan-orientalism or pan-Indianism(whatever the term for the subcontinent would be) or pan-Latinoism. If you were to say any of these others it seems immediately farcical but people always want to LARP about pan-Africanism for some reason.

>>23568
>CRT and Black Feminism
Bougie Liberal Navel-Gazing. This thread is about BLACK LIBERATION under SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM not vapid idpol analysis

https://archive.iww.org/history/library/Jackson/copinyourhead/

This deserves a read even if just for the coining of the word negrosie

>>23527
Harry Hayward has some good truth nukes https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Against_Bourgeois-Liberal_Distortions_of_Leninism_on_the_Negro_Question_in_the_United_States

>>24098
The PMC and the wine-moms are fundamentally reactionary parasites who embody the ills of the world, and I have no concern with saving or reforming them. I'd love nothing more than to see them all off themselves.
The other categories you've mentioned are definitely salvageable, however, even despite their reactionary tendencies, they can still be sublated.

>>24107
Wine moms, depending on how you define/identify them, are perhaps some of the best suited (some of them) to turning left. A lot of them just buy into whatever NPR or MSNBC tell them sure, but so many feel disappointed and dejected every time the Democrats fail. I know because I literally see it. The American voter, buy being so uneducated, have such insane politics it would drive you mad. I've met Hillary Clinton Stans who also love Luigi Mangione, or Pussy hat wearing protesters who want to see tribunals for ICE. It's crazy. You can't pick and choose your population in the country, you just have to work with who you have.

>>24121
>Wine moms, depending on how you define/identify them, are perhaps some of the best suited (some of them) to turning left.
Just start asking them about Palestine and they'll start talking about how the Free Palestine movement is a Russian conspiracy against the Democrats. Ask them how they feel about homeless people and they'll say they should be sent "somewhere" unspecified and that it's all mental illness and drug addiction that has absolutely nothing to do with obscenely high rent. Given the Hitler particles you can see just oozing from the "Wine Mom" types when you bring up homelessness, I honestly wonder what "somewhere" they have in mind. They don't want socialism, they want another Obama and they'll get that in 3 years, likely in the form of Cory Booker.

You start with a clear and concise idea of communism, based on Marx's writings, and establish a political program of tactics meant to bring about that idea. Then you ask people if they agree with your program and if they do, they can join your movement.

If you don't give a shit about the end goal you're gonna have a bad time. The average alienated worker's ideas are a grab bag of incoherence, even if they are 'radicalized' they are not gonna swing your way unless you dose them with logic. Maybe you could have some success with single-issue campaigns but those never lead to anything greater and can easily be copied or co-opted by the reactionary right.

>>24098
No offense but OPs like these are why people don't like leftism.

No, your summary is actually quite apt. Tl;dr Tudeh amass a sizeable following in Iranian industrial zones, fuck up by involving themselves too much in an oil nationalization campaign by a liberal PM and get aggressively repressed after the coup of that PM, slowly rebuild but are unable to recover completely from their 1953 setbacks, get banned by (capitalist) Islamists shortly after Iranian Revolution, which they were (wrongly) cautiously optimistic about. Good book attached