[ 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

'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.)

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

| Catalog | Home

File: 1654572619396.jpg (44.83 KB, 680x785, 1654488935300.jpg)


A spook is a concept that becomes fixed in a person's mind as a thing that is greater than themself (eg. morality, law, nationality, humanity, religion, etc.) It floats around in their head, "spook"ing them into doing dumb shit that is contrary to their own interests. Its a translation of the German word "Spuk" from Max Stirner's book Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. Could more accurately be translated as "phantasm."
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


That's a useful definition.


1. How are their true interests different than their stated spooky interests, which they inherit from society?
2. Why is your assertion of their true interests (whatever its nature) correct, and not another particular and arbitrary narrow egoism as we find in spook-followers?


1. Society is a spook
2. No one says anything about their interests being more 'true' than others, simply that they aren't bound to an outside entity


File: 1654644970901.jpg (2.75 MB, 4032x3024, 20220608_003315.jpg)

Hijacking this thread quickly
Can someone explain what this poem means in stirners context here?


When i say society i mean material society, not society the concept. What makes a spook different than a valid, internal value?

Can you show that individuals are only bound and not empowered by the outside entity? Also, is an entity external when it's been taken internally and expresses itself in all relevant ways within the consciousness of the individual?


Can anyone recommend me literature on strategies in war? From an officers perspective. Preferably something broad. I don‘t have any knowledge on the subject matter so something that is introductory material would be great as well, but it doesn‘t have to be.
39 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>>Pull your aim down as you spray to compensate for recoil
>that's smart
easily impressed uigha. that's the most basic FPS technique.


have a primary objective, and work back form there, in a way consistent with your conditions.

Like you have a goal, turn that into a plan. A plan has steps to reach the goal. This plan should be based on the reality of your abilities and some operating theory of how stuff works. From there, work on how to meet each step of the plan, and think about what could happen to have your plan change.

This is just off the top of my head though like basic logic, read anything here to have specific ideas. Knowledge comes from experience. But it seems like your problem is a total lack of a coordinated plan, because if you have a plan at all then it's a matter of cutting it into smaller and smaller levels of detail until it can direct your immediate action, then acting on that.


>expecting an estonian to give an unbiased account of the Eastern front


>From an officers perspective.
what is the class character of military officers ?
aren't they usually drawn from bourgeois or aristocratic ranks ?


I've found him to be pretty good overall.


post small passages from nonfiction books that struck you as interesting.

pic 1 from the end of The Darker Nations by Vijay Prashad

pic 2 from Washington Bullets by Vijay Prashad

pic 3 also from Washington Bullets

pic 4 from blackshirts and reds

File: 1654158166189-0.png (633.14 KB, 6120x2585, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1654158166190-1.png (188.54 KB, 507x1179, ClipboardImage.png)


I was reading about the Crimean war and I came across the "The Will of Peter the Great" a fake testament attributed to Peter the Great, which laid out his plans for Russian domination of the Middle East and Continental Europe, but was written by a Polish general and was cited by Napoleon, the Nazis, and US during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, even Marx believed it was an actual thing, it reminded me a lot of Elders of Zion shit, so it got me thinking, other then these two are there any other list of forged fake plans for world domination? I'd love to take a long day to sit back and read about them, cause while shchitzo nationalists texts are funny in a way, I think deliberately created false propaganda attributed to your more enemies are more interesting to learn about


File: 1654469293248.png (497.84 KB, 680x688, ClipboardImage.png)

that map was made by pic related
also >>>/siberia/


It was made by a Russian girl on deviatnart who was doing al alt-history scenario based on the The Will of Peter the Great, if it was actually real, which it wasn't

File: 1653573102792.jpg (868.46 KB, 1920x2280, IMG_20220526_094816535~2.jpg)


I'm 18 in 12th grade and have to write a screenplay for creative writing. I'm having a tough time tho :( Do you guys like my story ideas? Do you have any advice? :) Appreciate you guys!
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



This is fucking hilarious.

Uh, actual advice. Pick one by closing your eyes and hovering your finger round in a circle and picking one. Delete all the rest of the ideas so they don't cloud your mind.

Your teacher is likely not really gonna mark you based on whether its good, but that it followed the style and format they taught you. So don't worry about it being good. They can't mark you objectively on goodness.

The lazy way to do it would be to take an existing story/movie and reskin it.
change the setting - it was in a city? Now your movie is in a river
Change the characters - Well, if its in a river, they can hardly be humans, make all the characters frogs. They want things that frogs want, like more flies. You can replace needing money with needing flies
Drop a character, add a character - You want the story to not be recognizably the movie you picked, take out a major character, add a new major character.
Then just be creative - As you are going through this your gonna come up with a bunch of ideas of things that are cool. Run with them. You are only using the existing movie as a skeleton. When you decide you have enough ideas to forget about the movie it once was, go for it.

Biggest piece of advice i can give you is dont get stuck on the planning stage. Just start writing. The ideas will come and you'll have produced much more than a list of random scatterbrained ideas.


Have sex


FMA vibes right there


>/siberia/ thread in /edu/


I am reading a study but I don't quite understand what they mean by heritability. Of course, that should mean that a trait is passed on from parent to child. A trait caused by genetics. But how does it make sense that a trait becomes more heritable with age or more heritable with higher social class? I know "IQ is bullshit" and so on, but that's not what I care about at the moment. What do they mean by heritability when they use the term this way?

<Further complicating the picture have been studies showing that IQ tends to be fairly highly heritable, with most reliable estimates ranging from ≈0.5 to 0.8 (5). More recently, heritability has been found to vary both with age, with IQ becoming more highly heritable in later years (6), and with social class, with IQ more highly heritable in higher social classes (7). Although heritability does not imply the fixedness of a trait (e.g., height is highly heritable but also modifiable), the mixed results of training studies have been taken to be consistent with the notion that IQ is relatively fixed.


The only rationalization I have at the moment is: Let's say there is trait X and its value x. The parent has a certain value of X x1 and the child also has a certain value of it x2. If something was highly heritable, then x1 and x2 of trait X should be very similar. But nurture has an influence on x1 and x2 as well to some degree. If we look at the study again this could mean the divergence between x1 and x2 can be much greater when the child is young, but when the child becomes older x2 should converge towards x1. Similarly, when we deal with people of a lower social class there can again be a great divergence between x1 and x2. But with a higher social class the divergence decreases. Is that what they mean? Because if so, it's phrased poorly in my opinion. It makes it sound like a genetic trait becomes harder to pass on when you are younger or when you are poorer, which shouldn't be the case. What they are saying is that nurture can then have a higher impact on the divergence of the values of a trait between parent and child.
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Back on the 8chan days, /pol/yps were so hellbent on enforcing their race "realism" views that they made weekly threads arguing in circle about race and IQ for hours. /leftypol/ was one of the few places where thoses claims were actually dunked on rather than just deleted on sight, this before breadtube did it.
It's because of the recurrent occurence of thoses threads that the IQ= Autism scre filter was established. I think i still have the archives somewhere.


Nah, I know. I've seen threads like this on here before. Or actually the previous iterations of this community. But to be honest, back in around 2014 to 2016 people on /sci/ also gave significant pushback against race realism.


>IQ is real and important.
When i was at university me and my friends did a number of IQ tests, i got scores around 150, the smartest guy in our study group, a towering intellect if I ever saw one, got scores around 120.
It has to be bullshit.

>There is a correlation between being attractive, rich, successful, etc.

Maybe there is some truth to this because of actors and models, they get payed for their looks.
But capitalists aren't particularly intelligent, the billionaires were found to have just average intelligence.

>That also implies being unsuccessful and generally low-status makes you more likely to think of your current society as "unfair"

Well capitalism is unfair, that's a mathematical fact. Wealthy people got rich because market economics have a tendency to concentrate wealth, it's a structural tendency inherent to markets, it's got nothing to do with merit. Economic scientists have done simulations, even if you make market agents just do random trades, you end up with a wealth distribution that is exactly the same as what we see in the real world. That rules out individual traits as variable. When people trade, the exchange is rarely perfectly equivalent, in most instances one party ends up getting a better deal. If you take this to a statistics level of large numbers you end up with a small number of random people just being lucky and making mostly beneficial trades. If you implement an economic model that is not based on money transactions in markets you get a different distribution of wealth.

There is an ideological need for wealthy people to attribute their luck to personal virtue and the misfortune of others to personal failure. Otherwise they can't justify having all that wealth and power. In the past people used to believe in religion and the King was willed by god. Today that religion is dead, even religious people only have their personalized faith. In the capitalist system the rulers seek for other justifications. There is of course a natural level of inequality between people but it is very small, it can't account for the inequality we see in society and that is very inconvenient for the rulers.

The economy has been really terrible for over a decade, and recently it's got even worse. If you wish to attribute this to biological traits of our rulePost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Siberia Tier thread zzz jukebox npc takes


>while not even being aware of the definition of heriditabilty.
OP already gave a correct description of the term heritability. It's your definition that was wrong.

>"i know IQ is bullshit"

You don't even understand that statement. It's not denying the existence of different degrees of intelligence, but rather if that is the appropriate way to describe and measure intelligence.

>The only way to cope with this is by assuing equality apriori

Marx himself stated people aren't fully equal and striving for complete equality is a materially futile endeavour. You clearly aren't educated on the ideology you are criticizing and are just running with a caricature in your imagination.



File: 1652831116390.jpg (107.21 KB, 1200x675, 1597472005899.jpg)


>If I were you, I would start with Capital — Volume 1, chapter one. I would avoid reading anyone else for the time being. And I would reread the first chapter at least once. Then, I would write up a synopsis of the entire chapter, point by point. It is very dense and contains a lot of subtle arguments.
>Only after you have done this, and are satisfied with your synopsis, I suggest you compare your synopsis to David Harvey’s Companion to Marx’s Capital.
>(WARNING: Do not read Harvey before you read Marx or it will color your interpretation of what Marx is saying.)
>If you cannot see a difference between what Marx wrote and what Harvey says Marx wrote, you have not understood yet Marx’s argument in chapter 1. If you do see a difference, you are likely on your way to understanding how Marx approached capitalist society.
This sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but as someone who can't into delayed gratification the thing about summing up each part to later compare with others looks like a pain in the ass. Would you recommend this approach to beginning with marxism?


File: 1652837255138.png (1.4 MB, 1080x2237, wojak owned by marx 2.png)

You should treat Capital vol 1 2 and 3 as reference books rather than attempting to read them start to finish. Want to understand what surplus value is? Go to the index and look up surplus value then read everywhere its mentioned. Want to understand price go to the index etc.

Though if you're going to read them start to finish understand what Marx is doing….. he is taking each piece out of the Capitalist system and showing it to you like a piece from a car and explaining how it works whilst also explaining how it *cannot* work eg. *this steering wheel cannot possibly be an exhaust because there is no piping to push out the fumes* etc

If you were to read a car manual to understand how a car works it would inevitably be boring….But you would still want to know what the function of your radiator and wheels is

I don't really think you should read capital until you have read a Selected works copies which have been laid out correctly and broken up to show what Marx and Engels philosophical world outlook was. These are laid out in such a way that they are entertaining with Marx giving a detailed historical materialist analysis of the Civil War In France and the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

Selected works in 2 volumes I recommend (though get physical copies of them if you can)

Vol 1 https://archive.org/details/swmarxengels1/page/589/mode/2up

Vol 2 https://archive.org/details/swmarxengels2/page/493/mode/2up

And again whilst these can be read quite pleasurably from start to finish but you can still use them as textbooks to search in the index to see what they say on the nature of the State, the Dictatorship of the proletariat, commodities, industry etc.


what do you guys think of this?

i'm not very good with the economics stuff but this made sense to me


File: 1652956424548.png (114.26 KB, 882x343, ClipboardImage.png)

This is the big controversy. William C. Roberts is influenced by the New Marx ("value form theory") reading. Jehu likes Postone, but has a more traditionally reading that I think is similar to Werkritik. However, they think there has been a crisis in exchange value after the Bretton Woods agreement collapsed (don't really worry about this, it's based on an interpretation of the "Fragment on Machines the Grundrisse lol). What makes this controversial is socially necessary labor time being socially validated through the act of exchange implies Engels and traditional Marxist interpretations were incorrect. Abstract labor is viewed as the reduction of various "concrete labors" through the act of exchange rather than being constituted in production and realized in exchange.

But my honest advice is literally don't worry about it. Most of the arguments revolve around the first three chapters which you can't really engage in unless you want to argue about the context a couple of sentences various capital editions + older manuscripts. For anyone who hasn't read capital the debates will seem very pedantic and silly (bc they are lol). It's pointless to get bogged down in various interpretations if you haven't read it to begin with. If you need a guide I would just pick one that your favorite Marxist recommends and just know debates surrounding abstract labor do exist and this will have implications in Volume 3. It's really dumb to worry about it in my opinion. You can read about the debates in a weekend after you finish volume 1. Reading one guide or another won't "ruin" your reading.


By "they" I meant Jehu and Werkritik think there has been a crisis in exchange value. The NML (which Michael Heinrich is the main proponent of now and influenced what you cited) doesn't think this. I just wanted to make sure I was clear.


He's right and it's what I had to do years later when I realized my mistake. Ch. 1 is fundamental

File: 1653163299194-0.png (30.86 KB, 1002x77, but muh mud pies.png)

File: 1653163299194-1.png (42.55 KB, 1004x119, human labor power.png)


>Any basic study of economics shows you the stupidity of the LTV

anyone who says this

1. has not even read volume 1 of das kapital

2. confuses value and price

3. has unironically used the mud pies argument, insisting that marx is saying that worthless labor creates use value, even though he has said the opposite (pic 1)

4. thinks capitalists reinvest profits in the company even though profits are defined as whatever the capitalist pockets *after* dealing with business expenses and maintenance costs and paying off investors and workers.

5. thinks capitalists "deserve" the surplus value because they "took on risk"

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


additional reference


Shouldn't you post this in the >>5576 or >>4210 theads?


where do those picture quotes come from?


you don’t need to debunk every last thing some idiot says on the internet


not OP but this particular idiocy pops up again and again so I think it's worthwhile

File: 1652131463346.jpg (602.39 KB, 814x994, 1651315463397893291.jpg)


I've been wondering recently: the people who own nothing and produce nothing are the lumpenproletariat, and that includes hobos and criminals. However, organized criminals have bosses who take part of their gains, same as a capitalist takes a wage laborer's surplus value. Can thus mafia bosses and drug kingpins be called a "lumpenbourgeoisie", a specific type of bourgeois that takes the surplus value of illegal or extractive activities? I've seen the term applied to compradors. Also, Mike Hudson comes to mind - he claims the primary contradiction of modern capitalism is not between labor and capital, but the FIRE sector and everyone else, arguing that this industry produces no real physical value and just seeks rents off moving numbers around - could this also fall under the same umbrella?
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


white collar fraud is pretty universally vilified
in fact, i'd wager it's even more controversial and taboo than murder inc shit



Where are the TV shows where the police hunt down criminal businessmen for the audience to have a feeling of cathartic and vicarious justice?


Isn't that what that "In the name of the people" Chinese show is about?


In a country with a Marxist government. When it comes to the West these people are only used as an excuse to handwave capitalism's systemic issues away ("crony capitalism") without real malice, unlike what we see towards people in the ghetto selling drugs.


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.
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Thanks comrade. Volume 1 is of course a classic. The first 3 chapters might appear difficult at first, but after that it's basically a breeze. The book is like half theory half factory horror reports. You know, in machine learning or deep learning books they throw a lot of matheamatical equations around which is very different from capital in which the calculations though still complicated is much simpler compared to modern day textbooks.


Why is it taking you all so long to read these books? It took me a few days to read both. Is the American education system that poor?


Holy shit I did too.



yes :(

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