/edu/ - Education

"Eventually"? Getting rid of it is a necessity.

>>5553
That answers nothing

>>4667
>abolishing the production of things with the primary purpose of being sold (rather than shared or distributed)
So there will be no more trading collectable card games in communism?

>>5566
“abolish” is a bad translation of “sublate”. there won’t be a law making trading things illegal, that’s not what abolish means in Marxism.

>>5566
Pokemon card are shared and passed around.

Also: reminder to edit and add these debunks onto leftypedia instead of keeping them in ad hoc infographs.

>>4661
Why does the holocaust matter? Fascism is inferior on an ideological plane prior to any 'sins' of deed.

>>6787
>Why does the most horrific and large scale genocide matter lol?
<Why does history matter!?
<Why do real life issues of fascism matter!?
Imagine being this much of a retard

Dont care didnt read didnt happen

>>6820
At least you're sincere when it comes to admitting your immunity to reason

I'm not a student but I read shit like that occasionally. The author is not making up a private jargon. The language is utterly generic econ stuff. So I don't understand how you can fail to understand it. You can and should just look up the terms you don't understand.

Elasticity in economics means flexibility. If chocolate pudding varies a lot in price but I keep on buying the same physical amount month after month, then talking in Economese one would say that my demand for chocolate pudding is inelastic. Inelastic substitution between two things just means that having more of thing X does not help much with a lack of thing Y. (It's common in contemporary economics to not assume a general substitution rate like 5 X make up for 2 Y no matter how many units you have of each, rather it is usually assumed that the ability of the things to work as substitutes for each other gets worse the more you get away from the current proportions. This is not empirically derived, but based on the optimistic assumption that we are close to acting in a very sensible way about things like that.)

Constant returns means that when you are cooking something and you multiply the amount of each ingredient by the same number, the output of what you are cooking also gets multiplied by the same number. If at least one of your inputs cannot be varied like you'd want to, economists usually assume that you can't have constant returns. This is obvious in the cooking example if you really rigorously just follow one recipe with no alternative inputs allowed. Economists usually assume that you can do some substitution still, so you still have bigger output than before, but the growth is less than proportional to the inputs that you multiplied, since you didn't multiply everything. Again, the regular assumption is that prior to your attempt at changing the output quantity you had sensible proportions.

>>4638
>>4638
>The author is not making up a private jargon

I never said they were. I said that I needed help understanding it.

Thanks for the explanation.The problem with looking stuff up on google is that they rarely give a direct answer.

For understanding neoclassical economics - which in turn is necessary to learning contemporary heterodox economics, because so much of the jargon is shared - https://www.core-econ.org/ may be useful. It's free, designed for students, and by mainstream econ standards avoids a lot of ideological mystification.

>>4638
Sorry, I read your exaplantion, thanks for assisting, but I still can't wrap my head around this idea, I think I'm starting to get it…

> the elasticity of substitution between labor and land in the informal sector is smaller than the elasticity of substitution between labor and capital in the formal sector.

by saying the elasticity of substitution between labor and land is relatively low, does this mean that because land is relatively fixed, we cannot simply import many workers to match the productivity, because at a certain point, we need the land to work on?

And then on the other hand, in the formal sector, the elasticity of substitution between labour and capital is relatively higher, because you can substitute labour (i.e. people) for capital (and vice versa, i'm not sure if this is implied to go both ways or not??), and still maintain productivity? So are we saying that the formal sector is more equipped to deal with influxes of workers (or in Marxist terms, variable capital)?

>>4642
Yes. Where the author speaks of capital in the formal sector, he is thinking mostly of machinery and he is assuming that when the conditions of business change in the formal sector it's not that hard to change the mix of people and machinery to get something close to an optimal mix, unlike with land.

Get whatever tbh.

>>4631
Just learn German

>>4644
Not an anglo so learning german would be pretty hard for me.

>>4647
>Not an anglo
what's your native language then, anon? maybe if you tell us that we can give you recs based on your native lang and then you can look for those editions. I always prefer to read in my native language, even if I'm pretty confident in my english.

>>4649
Spanish.

>>4623
>Does he think the transitional state be exactly the same as the state that precedes it?
It’s core function of class domination is the same, because class domination is the defining feature of the Marxist understanding of the state. The difference is that it now works to secure the proletariat as the ruling class.
>because "state" does not adequately describe the dictatorship of the proletariat that is to be present in the transitional stage.
Why not?

Ruling classes' power needs constant maintenance, therefore it constantly needs a state, therefore letting the state wither one day would be full retard.

>>4625
What if there's no ruling class?

It means the dictatorship of the proletariat is not about freedom, it is about destroying bourgeois power. Therefore it will be "authoritarian," "totalitarian," "oppressive," etc. There can be no freedom until classes cease to exist and the state fades away.
We need to realize that his has been a weakness in previous attempts at socialism. We need a reign of terror that will make Stalin look like a pacifist.

>>4624
>It’s core function of class domination is the same, because class domination is the defining feature of the Marxist understanding of the state.
Then why did Engels say the Paris Commune ceased being a state?
>the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term.
If the Commune was a DotP according to Marx, how can Engels say it had ceased to be a state?

States arise as forms of class domination 'out of' class struggle, but does that necessarily mean that what we consider a state is the 'only' form of class domination? For example, why can't a band of workers in a city get together and kick out, kill, exile all the land owners and appropriate their wealth? Is that not class domination in the absence of a state?

>Why not?
I don't know. Engels said the word "community" should be substituted for "state". I am asking why? Surely he didn't mean it as a stylistic choice, there must have been a reason why the word "state" and its definition became poorly suited for the task, for Engels, after the Paris Commune. Did Engels want to expand the definition of the "state" to include other forms of governing or did "state" refer to a particular historical form of class domination?

>>4625
>Ruling classes' power needs constant maintenance, therefore it constantly needs a state, therefore letting the state wither one day would be full retard.
That's close to what I'm getting at. Humans will always need some sort of organisation, a system of reproduction of society. Unless we're all gonna become a linked super-brain and humans will coordinate and build society together just as easy as we lift a glass of water and drink from it alone Why does organisation always have to be called a state, especially when Engels was ready to drop that term in 1875?

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

What about green eyes

Thanks for sharing this, I've had trouble with alcohol before and this is really interesting

>>4759
According to the study green eyes are light like blue eyes so they'd also have higher rates of alcoholism

this sounds like bro science tbh

>>4489
obligatory dumbass tankie post

>>4490
Not him but what's so dumb about it? And I hope, that you know Zetkin and Kollontai are not Tankies

>>4490
>Hurr ur tankie
1) That's not an insult except in the minds of childish thorylet ankids and their infantile fantasies
2) There is no argument. Feminism is a goal, not a method, and to practice it is to practice identity politics and therefore, go against Socialism
3) The practical results of the USSR demonstrate success. In the USA the Suffragettes barely achieved anything other than 'voting' and 2nd/3rd wave feminism was mostly liberal contrarianism that porky used to pit men against women creating sectarian divides based on mostly bourg pseudoscience. In the USSR women had maternity leaves and accommodations for them, they could take ANY work they wanted but were also not pressured to choose tradionally masculine labour just to be contrarian. They had equal rights and their place in the labour force appropriately complimented men, just as men complimented them, rather than competing over nothing. Women in the Red Army were usually nurses but NOTHING stopped them from being ordinary soldiers and killing Nazi scum, nothing stopped them from leading factories and being awarded for heroism and labour.

That is real women's rights, and not some imagined whining.

>>4492
>only "theorylets" dislike MLs
lol

>>4494
Leftcoms and ancoms who aren't bad faith idealists disagree with MLs and may oppose them, but do not resort to petty emotional "hurr ur tankie", in-part because this argument is easy to flip right back at them and also in part because it is immature and not an argument, as you still don't have one.

Based. I'm a maths grad and am free to help if you reach any impasses.

>stewart's calculus
>not keisler's infinitesimal approach
take the hyperreal pill

>>4461
3. 2x(x-5) = 2x^2 -10x
4. (4-3x)x = 4x - 3x^2

>>4480
How is this possible, did you just rote memorize the algebra rules you needed in Calc?
You need a decent grasp on Algebra to pass Calc.

>>4613
Took Algebra 1 for 4th time in college and moved up literally all the way from there until Calc 2

it was really hard because I basically gave so little of a fuck past the 6th grade I still struggle with some basic calculations even after 2 years of non stop mathematics

I'm jelly of first worlders, they can get books for so cheap. Everything here is expensive, even used books in tatters.

Does that mean the Penguin classics catalog will get bigger?

>>4449
They should burn all the Chodehouse books if they are going. Chodehouse is baby crap. I don't read it and I don't need it shoved down my fucking throat cause manbaby will pee pee his pants if you don't read it.

>>4527
>shopindie
unfortunate word choice

I truly can't stand hearing about Chodehouse. Try talking about something I actually care about. Even just one page. Everyone here backs me up too. They don't want to hear some fat geek recite his favorite Chodehouse gags. Try to read and discuss somethin I fucking care about. Chodehouse peeves me off to no end.

>>4431
>What is the primary contradiction inside Academia?
wdymbt

same as rest of the society from what I hear, profitability versus productivity.

>>4435
Yeah but judging from that alone, you can't differentiate the various Disciplines

The contradiction in academia is disagreement on how best to reproduce the bourgeois and labor aristocracy

>same as rest of the society from what I hear, profitability versus productivity.
ding ding ding, although this takes on particular forms in academe

Since the middle ages academe has always been defined in large part by an attempt by intellectuals to wrest themselves independent of the control of territorial and economic powers and their demands so that they can think. You can condemn this as a bunch of elite nerds trying to evade social responsibility so they can jerk off, or celebrate it as the human spirit trying to comprehend higher things and achieve species-being against the petty squabbles of local elites, but either way it's been a pretty consistent feature of how academia has developed, and in particular struggles over what institutional forms and so on are adopted. (Actually you can see this struggle extending back even further into monastic organization, at least in the West and I would very strongly wager in Sufi lodges and Buddhist monasteries as well though I'm less familiar with those.)

Over the past several decades the autonomy of the universities has been very thoroughly eroded:

1) The usual funding mechanisms - an exponentially increasing number of paying undergrads, with little overhead - has disappeared.
2) Outside political forces want the university to justify itself in outside terms - contributions to innovation in the economy, and so on. Partnerships with various actors for funding has resulted in the usual alternative to the autonomous university/monastery to seep in - private patronage.
3) Internal "productivity" metrics have gotten more and more standardized for research academics (# papers published and citations gotten, in journals whose impact rating has been similarly quantified) and teaching (with teachers, just like other service workers, getting rated by students-cum-customers). You're seeing some pretty blatant attacks on the spirit of tenure done under the heading of wokeness (a heading which in most cases I suspect mostly masks attacks on academics who find themselves unpopular for far more petty reasons), but either way economic forces are eroding tenure anyway.

My idle hope is that people who want to think will be able to build new institutions that can withstand this (a tension that will be easier, but still a struggle, to realize under socialism) but if you look at the internet, 1) censorship cynically justified as merely an attack on a fPost too long. Click here to view the full text.