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

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)
Required: 3 + 1 =

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

| Catalog | Home


Guys I just finished Capital Volume 2 I'm so proud of myself. That book was really long and contained a lot of calculations but at long last I have finished. Of course I don't binge read it all the way, sometimes I try to read one chapter then switch to less intensive stuff, like reading Stalin or Hoxha (or anything that I like) for instance. So here is what I think:
1) So the first several chapters is spent discussing the circulation: M-(C+LP)-Pr…Pr1-C1-M1.
M: original money capital
C: Commodity
LP: Labour power (basically you hire someone).
Pr: The production process
Pr1: After you have produced stuff
C1: New commodity (to be sold)
M1: A larger amount of money (after you have sold stuff).
The discussion is rather long-winded, but I think here Marx tries to hammer the fundamental points again and again so that's fine i guess.
Here there is also some mention about 1) Gold 2) Services, such as transportation which is slightly different but will need to be referred to later on
2) Then there are the chapters about circulation time, labour time, production time (for example when you let wine in a barrel for like 10 years, that's when production time > labour time), so on and so on and so on. I think those chapters are quite okay, although there is a chapter in which the authors investigate the effects of advanced capital and turnover period, in which the maths is quite complicated, but I just do not think that there is much to it although it's true that the results show that this requires credit but i mean that's obvious. There are also some parts about fixed and circulating capital which is important, and Marx hammers down on Adam Smith and Ricardo which is rather complicated yeah I know I want to know how capitalism is bound to have crisis not watch some economist dissing on other economists.
After that there are also some chapters discussing effects of circulating surplus value, variable capitals, … Here there is discussion of how the hell can the system get the money for the surplus value. So for pre-credit time it's from gold-producing industries, and for credit-era the capitalists keep sending in money so that later on they will get back that money and even more money. Think Keynesian spending or other such stuff. Also effect of wage increase is discussed.
I think that some parts about fixed and circulating capital is rather complicated and do not show the main points.
3) Now we Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



yes :(


File: 1690404736467-1.png (357.52 KB, 369x512, ClipboardImage.png)

bump. I just started volume 2 and don't want this thread to die.


do you have a job and a child? I get maybe 30 minutes to read a day


You can get through an entire chapter or 2 in 30 minutes. Drop your kids off at an orphanage and you get even more time.


This is a video looking at the right-wing history channel WhatifAltHist, and the broader trends in historical studies that it represents.

4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


It's worth remembering that on any platform but especially youtube, it pays (literally) to be provocative and to ride the line about what you're allowed to say. If you can get a bunch of people to make video responses to you about how problematic you are, they are doing a lot of free marketing for you.


File: 1690381477920.jpg (249.9 KB, 1200x800, cringe singularity.jpg)

>complains about reactionaries
>8 minutes in
>directly quotes Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" bit


There's a lot of liberal history as well, I would say that is actually the majority. IMO these are far more harmful because they're not just preaching to the choir, and they're not politically explicit.

Of course the liberal historians become obviously right-wing when it comes to left-wing events. They will not directly glorify fascistic and imperialistic counter-revolutionary forces but will instead relativize and omit essential facts so that communist revolutions appear as violent attacks by a small clique on the moderate civilized status quo, while (attempted) counter-revolutions are painted as general resistance to the aggression of that small clique. In liberal view communism is always merely a deviation from the progression to the end of history, and it happened in "backward" countries not because their starting point was different (weak bourgeoisie, usually compradors) but because their culture wasn't sufficiently westernized.


Good point. There's also probably a lot of confirmation bias going into the idea that history buffs tend to be right wing.


The vids on this guy by Fredda are better

File: 1689996459292.png (166.62 KB, 400x208, ClipboardImage.png)


what do you think about the sokal affair?

idk much about sociology or poster modernism but it feels like an attack on leftism? even though alan sokal himself says he was a leftist and was trying to dissuade it from going somewhere weird

but all the "destroys postermodernism" youtube thumbnails i see when i search this, eerily remind me of the other rightwing shit of "destroys sjws" type

i saw a few lines and it just reads like incomprehensible jargon? i couldn't tell if it was parody honestly if i didn't know, scientific mumbo jumbo


He got a nonsense article published in a journal that didn't even have a peer review process. It was a publicity stunt.


There's way bigger scandals in academia like the replication crisis, but sokal affair was "owning the libs" so it gets more attention.


>idk much about sociology or poster modernism but it feels like an attack on leftism?
You can just read their (Sokal & Bricmont) book on the hoax, Fashionable Nonsense. It's on libgen. The journal they trolled was rather obscure. They put an astonishing amount of time into researching into the phenomenon that they were criticizing with that hoax (self-styled radical leftists abusing niche jargon from math and physics they don't seem to understand themselves). Their criticism of some writers of the "left" was really limited to that.

The "Sokal Affair" is whatever the MSM wants it to be, so Sokal being pro-Palestine or whatever else being inconvenient for the flow of the story can just be dropped. If they want to tell the story of an epic conservative teacher owning SJWs, they do that. They don't have to explicitly lie, they can just use suggestive language and omission.

There have been many copy-cats getting crap published (and not just the humanities, but also computer science), some of which has been generated by AI far more primitive than what we have seen over the last couple of years.


Fuck postmodernism.


What about post-post-modernism


Post dumb pseudoscientific nonsense, poorly-written pop-sci and other junk science topics to make fun of and critique
47 posts and 22 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Still haven't answered this: >>18552
You keep proving my point, you never discuss the content, you always avoid, switch to another topic, you will do and say anything rather than read/engage with the content. You simply ignore it in favour of sophist tirades. That's why I call you a liberal, because your viewpoint relies on you rejecting reality, whereas I go into these discussions wanting to be dissuaded. Yet even to someone who is receptive to counter-arguments, you aren't willing or able to come up with anything more than strawmen and insults. Why is that?


File: 1688653013266.png (175.46 KB, 1774x353, ClipboardImage.png)

uh oh, what is this?


If that is what I said then I was wrong. Nothing more to say. There are no archeologists dating it as 10.000 years old, that is just an unproven theory.

Was that from the first thread? As I said many times, I changed my mind on a few things. I don't think Derinkuyu is from 8.000 BCE.

My focus shifted to Egyptology, Pyramid of Giza, Sphinx, etc. Way more interesting, like this: >>18552
Very advanced tomb.


File: 1690044229370.png (870.6 KB, 1080x1994, schizo.png)

Looks like the Hancock Schizoid Disorder has infected physicists. Everybody knows the universe is 13.9 billion years old.
>26.7 billion
They need to remove Hancock from the internet, remove all of his videos and books, burn all his books. This poison must not continue.




Choose a real pro-socialist speech given historically (translations allowed) that you could give on a soapbox in a park or square today.
Bonus style points for speeches performed over a century ago.
Triple points for attaching recorded audio.


Who is the left wing equivalent of Nietzsche? Who is the edgiest leftist philosopher or philosopher who can be read and/or interpreted as left wing?

Foucault? Zizek? D&G? Sorel (pre-fash)? Even someone like Plato, Plotinus, or Spinoza?
7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1689655584895-0.png (979.43 KB, 621x1000, ClipboardImage.png)

i mean deleuze was pretty well known for reinvigorating a left-wing interpretation of nietzsche within academia


insurrectionary anarchism as an ideology really
>fuck it bro just like have open guerilla wars with the police and assassinate random heads of the state

Based retards of Left fr luv em tho


Is Nietzsche considered edgy?



You can hardly beat his attempt at becoming an aztec style human sacrifice

File: 1608528077076.png (21.43 KB, 331x286, 1570719182043.png)


>inb4 Grover Furr
61 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Oops with the sage whatever


He's often accused of misquoting the historians he criticizes. Whether that's true or not is something I am too ignorant to tell you.


I remember someone from the leftypol area posted a Soviet historian, named Zoloyev (Zolotev?), but can't find him. Apparently was really, really good.


He's a loser


for no real reason really.

File: 1689408813422.png (75.71 KB, 365x375, ClipboardImage.png)


How much did the german historical school of economics influence the russian revolutionaries? Did they reject it or embrace some of it? I do know lenin "admired" the german empires economics system, and I do know bukharin wrote a critique or etc on it but besides that how much influence was there?
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Well there's no direct references but bukharin does appear to have studied them extensively which answers part of your question

I suspect your intuition of there being more is correct


yes which is why I want to see if people here know other sources or etc. If not well theres always personal investigation.


Sure I'm also planning on having a quick dig into it and if I find anything I'll post it here




! Werner Sombart !


>Blanquism refers to a conception of revolution generally attributed to Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805–1881) that holds that socialist revolution should be carried out by a relatively small group of highly organised and secretive conspirators.
<Blanquism is distinguished from other socialist currents in various ways: on the one hand, Blanqui did not believe in the predominant role of the proletariat, nor did he believe in popular movements—instead he believed that revolution should be carried out by a small group of professional, dedicated revolutionaries, who would establish a temporary dictatorship by force. This dictatorship would permit the implementation of the basis of a new order, after which power would then be handed to the people.
>In another respect, Blanqui was more concerned with the revolution itself rather than the future society that would result from it—if his thought was based on precise socialist principles. Blanquist thought rarely goes so far as to imagine a purely socialist society. For Blanquists, the overturning of the bourgeois social order and the revolution are ends sufficient in themselves, at least for their immediate purposes.

If the proletariat is not a viable revolutionary subject, maybe the revolutionary subject is the self selected revolutionary himself or a vanguard of likeminded people?

Why was Blanquism never persued in any significant way? Maybe Blanqui is the real thinker for our times if the Hegelian-Marxist notion of a revolutionary subject is dead?


because its a wikipedia ideology


How are you going to establish such a transitionary dictatorship without any popular support? It could be theoretically achieved by getting high ranking military personnel on your side, but there is nothing we can offer them that the ruling class couldn't.



File: 1689347650052.jpg (865.93 KB, 2448x3264, IMG_20230714_091001_860~2.jpg)


Any explanation for why the function on the right is correct would be great
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


bro graduated from a taco bell parking lot


Yeah don't worry I'm well aware that education in NA sucks in comparison to most of the planet especially SEA and east asia


OP is acing differential equations without knowing basic algebra, I'm kind of jelly, it must take serious brains




I've been doing algebra since I started calc, theres just a lot of new tricks and identities I only learned in the course that weren't introduced suring my time in hs. No this doesn't take any brains at all, I just spent god how many hours studying this and practicing over the course of several months.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / 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