/edu/ - Education

Interesting comparison of API credits in these PDFs. The file sizes vary a lot - makes me wonder about the content differences. API credits comparison (https://ai-credits.ai/)

Recommend books

>>26377
It would be >>26341
Though revisiting, maybe it's not /edu/cational enough. There isn't really a /lit/ board is there

>>26380
I get it, all good.
Whether China is capitalist or socialist or both or neither is up to debate, and often times it's a semantic one, I wouldn't worry about it. What matters is what China is and what can be learned from it. You'll probably learn MMT and Neokeynesian bullshit at college, which is fine, and it's good to be educated on liberal economics. But do not forget to study Marxism as well.
I think video related is a good starter on Das Kapital. It's a very good channel. But watching videos is not education, you need to read and to write and to debate and be wrong and corrected by others.

>>26381

im still posting because, well i should probably stop now and go read lol
and what i'll read, probably the capital and then the communist manifesto? then hop either to marx's other texts, or to something focused on maiost thought, i will get this base done first before really putting a label on myself

and thank you for believing in me, i hope i dont disappoint you lol

>>26382
i will put this on right now probably, ty for the recommendation!!

>>26383
The manifesto is much shorter and easier than capital, my friend.

>>26385
oh rly? well, i'll start w that then, thank you!!

Conservatives and fascists do not care about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a tool you use for a third party audience. They know there are contradictions in what they say, but what they say feels right to them. Reality to them is just a tool.

>Third-Worldism
Third-Worldism is another term for Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, or just Maoism, which situates imperialism as the "primary contradiction" of politics; hence it focuses on people's protracted conflict and the task of nationalism more than class warfare in general; viewing the working class of a ruling hegemon as exploiters of the so-called "Third World" (a sociological term invented during the Cold War to distinguish between the Western First World, Soviet Second World, and undeveloped Third World of geopolitics - so the term "Third World" isn't really applicable today). Practically, Maoism splits the workers' movement into racial grievances against "White People". We can say that the Left has largely substituted Marx for Mao today.
>Third-Positionism
Well, as a Classical Liberal, I consider myself "neither" Communist or Capitalist in orientation, so perhaps I am of the Third Position. In Dugin's "Fourth Political Theory", he counts Liberalism as the First political theory, so that may disqualify it, if we take his authority. In terms of various strands of Fascism, we can compare them against each other more than we can compare them with each other. Gentile and ᴉuᴉlossnW develop Fascism from 1919 onwards as a type of political Hegelianism which they term "totalitarian" by the maxim "all within the state, nothing outside the state". It is radically hostile to any individualism, yet still grants personality in the state Sovereign. It is above all a philosophy of "action" (which we see in Mosley's British Fascism symbolised by the lightning bolt). National Socialism is codefied in 1919 also, by Rudolf Jung, and gives precedence to race and volk more than a political state. Before ᴉuᴉlossnW and Hitler's partnership in 1936, ᴉuᴉlossnW was anti-racial, but afterwards, was a Darwinist, such as we read in the "Manifesto of Race" (1938). So, Fascism was originally non-racial, but unifying in its Nationalism, while Hitler was purifying in his racialism. This is a great divide. Nonetheless, both men believed in life as a violent struggle, which often alludes to Nietzsche's sentiments, but not his conclusions.

>>26296
>What is Third Worldism
It's a strand of maoist thought that considers the "primary contradiction" to be held in the globalization and imperialist characteristics of capitalism, rather than class struggle in the developed countries per se.
Mao's view on contradictions was that they existed into everything, and that at a given point in time there was always a primary contradiction and secundary contradictions, which rested upon the former. Any changes in a object for him reflected the evolution of contradictions, between opposing characteristics with potential to overcome one another. For instance, a lion requires food to live but also risks his life whenever he hunts. The other dilemmas that a lion can face are secundary to the sustenance of his livelyhood (primary/secundary contradiction).
Based on this theory of contradiction, third-worldists think that the "primary contradiction" in modern-day capitalism is the need to export labor in third world countries to have low-costs, whilst simultaneously keeping their conditions inferior to western countries. According to them, if the living conditions in the third world increased, or if the capitalists were unable to export labor there, they would not be able to keep their profit margins and would collapse. Therefore, according to third worldists, the primary issue shouldn't be emancipating labor in the first-world, which they see as contingent on the third world's exploitation, but rather the emancipation of third worlders from first-world capitalists.

>What are your thoughts on Third Positionism?
Doesn't work. You can't reconcile the interests of the working class with that of the bourgeoisie because you either have to abandon for-profit commodity production or retain it. There's no "in-between". This is a simple issue really : you can't simultaneously have workers decide production (otherwise production would be socialized) whilst also allowing the bourgeoisie to decide it aswell. In essence, you can't have 2 bosses telling you 2 different goals and directions. Historically, third-positionnists have tried dividing property up or having strong unions but the logic of capital has so far always been able to overcome these hindrance.

it's when people from the third world exist, or when someone says something nice about the third world like that they shouldn't be killed. meow

NHH

>>26245
I would read 'Less is more' by Jason Hickel or 'Slow Down' by Kohei Saito. There are loads of other books that you can read, but these are the first that come to mind :)

>>26245
Check out John Bellamy Foster's books

>>26245
>how the capitalist mode of production purposefully perpetuates climate change.
The capitalist mode of production is not an entity and it does not possess a will or purpose. Its function is to create surplus value. Nothing more. Capitalists (functionaries of Capital) might use the Capital they control to contribute to the increase of causes of climate change, but this is not because climate change is their goal. The valuation of Capital is paramount. All other considerations (ecological sustainability, the welfare of Human Capital, etc.) are hindrances.

>>25486
>>25487
I was a phil major for years and ended up dropping out and I agree 100% with what you are saying. Academia is just a recuperation factory.

>ideological brainwashing factories
reactionary rhetoric

>>25505
academia is anti-communist, sorry, the theory industry is an industry just like music and movie industries are, and its stimulated by Capital to toe the NATO line in similar ways

>>25438
I studied sciences and I don't think it was a waste of time at all. I have attended a few political sciences lectures at university since a friend was the professor and I was happy to see that he taught the students to think critically. All people deserve access to higher education with it being liberating. I would definitely give it a go. That said, I don't know what the situation in the US is like. Universities are definitely not "ideological brainwashing factories". Publish or perish is also a thing, but it is more related to research.

Unfortunately nowadays academic education is just publishing AI slop papers in bulk. Not worth it unless you need a job that requires the certifications, or if you're in it entirely for the education.

becoming good at explanations goes like this:
read a chapter
write its point out in your own words
take your explanation and cut it down to no more than three or four points.
try make any point explainable in a couple sentences.

if you cant explain the subject you either:
havent understood the subject deep enough
or
havent attempted to prepare an explanation prior to speaking

or both!

You know Lenin already did something like this in many of his texts, where he would write a condensed version in some part of the book. His words on Imperialism:
>If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up
>We must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features: (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
There's more bits like this but I have to find them

>>21629
There is a video which condenses some of the main points of the book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kF1dENzDg8

It obviously doesn't include lots of information presented in the book, but it does include some useful information such as an introduction to monopolies and the definition of finance capital. One thing I found particularly interesting is that the descriptions used by capitalist economist Hobson proved Lenin's points.