[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

| Catalog | Home


If there is an objective reality, aren't interpretations of it merely falsehoods besides 1 truthful description of reality? I understand that every perspective is innately subjective, but theoretically, if there is an objective reality, then what we call interpretations could only be falsehoods besides 1 interpretation that actually describes reality as it is.
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>If we have an objective reality, which is described by a set of information, then we have enormous amounts of subsets of it. Each can be used to create a model of reality. Each could be strung up in irrational ways. So I would say it's wrong to say only very few reality models are complete falsehoods. Considering the total amount that you could create, we actually have many.
No this is moving the goal post, we're talking about models of the world that people actually use.

>To me, I will call it a falsehood if the interpretation has a falsehood in it and the interpretation, therefore, deviates from the one and only fully truthful description of objective reality.

Perfectionism is stupid. All model have errors, it doesn't make them falsehoods, it just limits their applicability.

>But that's talking about two different things here. I agree that you mental life objectively exists as physiological processes in your brain, but the experience of reality from your perspective is subjective.

Experience of mental life is still a physiological process in the brain. There is nothing beyond physiological processes in the brain. All the consciousness is included in that, there is nothing that is separate from objective reality.


Your insistent misunderstanding and strawmanning of what subjectivity is stems from having read Paul Cockshott, as opposed to Kant or any actual philosopher.


My belief is that there is an actual physical reality (things like where actual physical matter resides in space and time (and etc.?), this is real and non-negotiable, it is beyond the subjectivity of interpretation because it is not an interpretation), and all interpretations by an organic being (human or otherwise) are inherently subjective. No-one has the exact same eyes, the same location, the same brain connections, and thus our realities may be generally congruent but are always a subjective interpretation of our environment that will differ from others in some way.
I also believe that mathematical/scientific interpretations will almost-if-not-inevitably be false for similar reasons. It seems like limitations of measurement alone force any interpretation to be subjective.

am i doing it right? I haven't studied this area of philosophy either.


And to link the above to OP's question,
>then what we call interpretations could only be falsehoods besides 1 interpretation that actually describes reality as it is.
This is a very binary view of the situation. The subjective realities most likely have truths in them, even if they contain many falsehoods. I would call them generalizations, for things that aren't even wrong but aren't the full reality. Is there a real 'blue'? It's a relative social construct; yes, even the number of nanometers we collectively decided was perfect blue wavelength. It's a mathematical interpretation of light we felt made sense to label 'blue'.
But, if you must be absolute, interpretations are ultimately different to reality. I wouldn't even say false; what is success in an interpretation?


Interpretations are symbolic for reality, some being more correct than others. That is how mythology can still be inciteful. Philosophy is mythology devoid of narrative and expressed in logical categories.

File: 1645310162934.png (1.35 MB, 1824x1104, CubanoTalk.png)


What exactly is Charisma? How much of it can be learned? I tried looking at sources for this(Wikipedia articles for example), but most of them seem only tangentially related to the topic. Books and resources are appreciated.
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Again, where theory?


Mfr really be asking for sources for charisma and a reading list


welcome to /edu/


"how do I become blessed by god?" Oh my sweet, sweet child…
>Max Weber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
"he identified the term as a prime example of action he labeled "value-rational," in distinction from and opposition to action he labeled "Instrumentally rational."
"Weber indicates that it is followers who attribute the individual with supernatural or superhuman powers, emphasizing that "the recognition on the part of those subject to authority" is decisive for the validity of charisma"
>Marxist evolution nature dialectics: "Charismatic leadership and the evolution of cooperation" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816300174?via%3Dihub
"A fundamental challenge to understanding our evolved psychology is to explain how cooperative or prosocial behaviors are maintained despite the immediate temptation to free-ride. We propose that charismatic leadership and followership can be best understood as a product of this recurrent, fitness-relevant selection pressure for adaptations that effectively promoted and sustained prosocial behaviors within groups."


Some people are born into it; they have the character and therefore the behavior and social savviness to pull it off. Others do not have it innately but can learn to be socially savvy and gain charisma, some people, usually socially awkward or timid people (or autists) can't learn it at all, even if they may technically understand it.

File: 1638820515251.jpg (26.84 KB, 504x373, grant3.jpg)


how is histmat supposed to help us get to communism? are we still supposed to just support socdem movements? what especially does it mean now in the regressive post-industrial landscape of the past 40-50 years of neoliberalism, if not the entire past century since WWI?


The same way a physics textbook could get us to the moon. As for actual strategy, that's a question thay will vary from place to place. At some points collaboration with the social democrats will be advantageous. At others, strict opposition will be a necessity.


What do you think histmat is and why do you believe it could help us do communism, and how would it help us?


we have to see capitalism through to it's end no matter what


>What do you think histmat is
like figuring out the horrific machinations and implications of commodity fetishism and just like figuring out what to do with that knowledge
extremely late reply, sorry

File: 1645641454120.jpg (39.51 KB, 483x586, stalinvhitler.jpg)


Hey comrades, any of you know any good history books for beginners that aren't too bougie? Or just history books in general? Also textbooks if you know of any.

As always post the pdf if you have it.



"A people's history of the world" by Howard Zinn


Open Veins of Latin America

File: 1641604170351.jpg (58.83 KB, 306x500, 51CYR088YHL.jpg)


"The transformation to a neo-colonial world has only begun, but it promises to be as dramatic, as disorienting a change as was the original European colonial conquest of the human race. Capitalism is again ripping apart and reconstructing the world, and nothing will be the same. Not race, not nation, not gender, and certainly not whatever culture you used to have." —from the preface


As of 07/01/2022: Ch. 2-7 in need of formatting. All chapters in need of citation links. Needs proofreading.


File: 1645750580512.pdf (5.32 MB, 255x197, night-vision.pdf)


File: 1644524668151.jpg (143.59 KB, 600x1020, Ice man.jpg)


Has anyone here read this? It was recommended to me by some pan african socialists as a materialist analysis of European violence. I did a little research, didn't find the book for free though, and it seems like it may be hotep shit. Just wondering if anyone here's read it.
20 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1645415964614.png (100.68 KB, 536x425, ClipboardImage.png)

>an idea that actually stems from Arabs and was adopted by the Spanish due to their colonization by Arabs
surprised this isn't well known, modern european racial science came from arab racial ethnography which was based on vauge explanations in the Toral that were expanded upon
basically in their version all white and brown people(Greeks, Arabs, Spanish, Romans) were the same race, decadents of Shem, the default race basically, that had the best traits of all, all black people, southern Indians and SEA's were sons of Ham and every Turkic raider or someone with small eyes were sons of Japheth

Abū’l-Ghāzī wrote the Shajara-i Tarākima
>that recount the origins of the Turks. The account begins with descent from Adam to Noah, who after the flood sends his three sons to repopulate the earth: Ham was sent to Africa, Shem to Iran, and Japheth went to the banks of the Itil and Yaik rivers and had eight sons named Turk, Khazar, Saqlab, Rus, Mongol, Chin, Kemeri, and Tarikh. As he was dying, he established Turk as his successor


You just used the word „race“ but is that the proper term when discussing the categories that were conceptualized by Arabs? As you‘ve just said, they are the descendants of a specific origin. In old German one would refer to that as „Geschlecht“. Not sure what the proper terminology is in English.


There are two way to look at these works
as Satire this would be hilarious, cause it's taking racial pseudo-science that was developed by racists and using it against white people without ever changing it
Casting whites(and incidentally Arabs) as a barbaric conquering people who can only steal and subjugate, like how the Krags were presented in Earth Sea

as satire this works well, but taking it as fact, well then this is just spouting pseudo-science to make yourself feel good


File: 1645468209574.png (205.18 KB, 517x522, ClipboardImage.png)

what's funny is that a lot of these afro-centrists turn white people into basically supermen, all of them super brutes and genetic freaks who are just genetically disposed to conquer other races and they will always win
Frances Cress Welsing for e.g believed that If white people were allowed to exist they would always come out on top, you'd expect some German Nazi to say this shit, but it came from black proto-Hotep who believed the Egyptians were black until the white Assyrians and hitties, Persians conquered and destroyed black civilization and raped black women for generations to create the modern "brown" Egyptian people


it's not satire, a lot of black petty bourgeois unironically think this. they invert white supremacy to make themselves feel better about it. they'll advocate european style patriarchy and frame it as a dig at the white man. i guess it's just an assimilation strategy

File: 1645205348980.png (79.14 KB, 2034x2718, imperial surplus.png)


Revolutions in the core countries of the capitalist imperial order failed because the imperial bourgeoisie can survive temporarily even if they can't extract surplus from workers in the core. They can sustain them self on exploitation of the periphery for a little while, to weather revolutionary phases.

First there have to be revolutions in the periphery, either anti imperial bourgeois national revolutions, or socialist revolutions. Either of those will cut off the imperial bourgeoisie from backup surplus. That will give the proletariat in the core political leverage.

The limitations of this theory:
Ageing societies in 21th century will shift political leverage to the working class regardless. In 10 to 20 years this will only have historic value.

Criticisms of my theory are welcome
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Capital has effectively been deterritorialized which means the revolution will have to be deterritorialized but y'all ain't ready for that conversation.


Noooo fighting international capital with nationalist movements is totally the smart thing to do!


File: 1645214981978.png (398.14 KB, 500x374, ClipboardImage.png)

Elaborate for us brainlets


You understand enough to reference Deleuze and Guattari. I'm not that familiar with what their version of it looks like (the nomadic war machine, which they discuss in A Thousand Plateaus), but our modern struggles and orgs need to coordinate internationally in order to disrupt capital. It shouldn't even be that hard in theory. The big thing is to look at global supply chains and understand where a company operates internationally so they can be disrupted at that scale. If you're gonna unionize your workplace the union should include people who work for the company all over the world. If there's revolutionary stirrings in one area and porky picks up and moves, people should be ready to stop them from settling elsewhere and take the opportunity to go on strikes or seize the MOP in other parts of their supply chain. The thing about capitalism becoming globalized is that people have their hands in pots all over the place. Disruption anywhere is bad news for lots of international conglomerates, which means that it should be possible to set up a kind of domino effect where a weakened situation would make it easier for workers to seize power elsewhere. We can't keep seeing the struggle in the vein of Socialism in One Country. Even if you tried to do Socialism in Once Company, you would have people seizing the MOP in many countries around the world.

The developing multipolar world also creates a problem for the international bourgeoisie because they are losing the ability to impose their rule at a global scale. Contrary interests makes it harder for different factions to coordinate and squash burgeoning revolutions. We should leverage that too.


Okay revisionist, now go read Enver Hoxha's Theory and practice of the revolution, then you might be cured.

File: 1640985151169.png (3.94 MB, 3756x1514, CapitalQuestion.png)


What are some real-world examples of this phenomenon? This is said to happen during the explanation of the Circuit of Productive Capital, but nothing comes to mind.
5 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Any reading material to explain the second one, since it isn't intuitive at first glance(what the hell is that K for example), or are these terms used in a volume I haven't gotten to yet?


pretty sure it’s the first chapter of volume 2


Didn't Marx say that an example is gold ? Also check another special case, namely services, such as transportation in which C' is something that is performed during the process.


The diagram on the right looks so horribly complicated compared to that of Marx's lol


Also read this small pamphlet by Lenin which explains the basics of the reproduction schema:


Hi everyone. Recently, as I surf the more esoteric corners of the web, I came across a Western academic paper which has this rather curious reference:
"E.Hoxha, Per Shkencen, 1976-1984” (On Science, 1976-1984), Shtepia Botuese “8 Nentori”, Tirana, 1985"
Presumably this book is from Enver Hoxha discussing stuff related to science. Now this is really curious since this does not show on sites like marxists.org. I wonder if anyone here has ebook version of this book ? Even in Albanian it would be fine, I can find ways to apply it to Google translate to read it. Thanks a lot.

File: 1644610966907.jpg (62.05 KB, 500x425, 20220123_230552.jpg)


How does the reserve army of labour theory fit into full employment during let's the post-war boom?
Also how would you respond to the critiques given forward by for example Paul Samuelson:
>Some economists such as Paul Samuelson have taken issue with Marx's concept of the reserve army of labour. Samuelson argues that much Marxian literature assumes that the mere existence of the unemployed drives down wages, when in reality is dependent upon contingent factors. (Are the unemployed easily available as replacements? Is the mere threat of replacement sufficient to get workers to accept a wage cut or does the employer have to demonstrate this is not an empty threat?) Samuelson argues that if prices also fall with money wage, then this does not mean real wages will fall. Samuelson also argues that wages will fall only until there are no more unemployed to bid it down: the reserve army can reduce wages only by decreasing its size. Samuelson's concludes that to mean that while the unemployed can reduce wages, they are incapable of reducing them to anywhere near subsistence levels before the unemployed all become employed.[9]


>have taken issue with Marx's concept
>argues that much Marxian literature



post your wikipedia copy-pastes on /leftypol/ or /siberia/, not here


You heard it mods

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home