[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]

/edu/ - Education

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

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new every Monday : /meta/

| Catalog | Home

File: 1608528410026.jpg (597.68 KB, 1600x1200, IMG_2100.jpg)


and how do they plan on deprecating money itself? I know labor vouchers is usually the system that’s brought up but it doesn’t seem like Marx himself was thrilled about it, he just said it could be temporarily used in a workers’ state. I don’t understand how he planned on deprecating it afterwards. Cockshott expanded upon this by adding that they could be digital so that people wouldn’t be able to trade with them. but how does the act of trading currency inherently promote labor alienation? I understand how under private property it does, but in a collectively owned means of production I don’t see why it’s a problem, or why it’s any better than the currency system of the Soviet Union.
tl;dr why do orthodox Marxists believe no banknotes at all > labor vouchers > money?
pic unrelated.
14 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


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


That answers nothing


>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?


“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.


Pokemon card are shared and passed around.


Let's debunk muh holocaust revishunism with FACTS & LOGIC.

Articles, books, infographs everythings is welcomed.
39 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


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


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


>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


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

File: 1608528408081.png (145.71 KB, 740x697, duflo.png)


I consider myself fairly intelligent when it comes to reading papers, but I'm really struggling with this one.

This paper is about an education program in Indonesia and the long term effects on the job market. I'm used to studying more sociological papers, but this also includes lots of statistical analysis and words like function and regression that I don't understand.

Also, I've read this passage 10 times and don't understand it

>The production function in the formal sector exhibits constant returns to physical and human capital combined. The fact that the increase in the share of educated workers led to a movement of workers from the informal to the formal sector indicates that 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.

Can anyone help me? If I want to understand this stuff, what kind of courses should I be looking at?


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.


>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.


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)?


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.

File: 1608528407643.png (519.1 KB, 567x661, marxjew.png)


Everyone tells me Penguin Classic's translation of all of Capital is the best around but what about the rest?

- Paris Manuscripts
- Germany Ideology
- Civil war in France
- Feuerbach
- Gotha
- Grundrisse
- Wage labor and capital
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


Get whatever tbh.


Just learn German


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


>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.



File: 1608528406937.jpeg (89.33 KB, 1023x378, jengels.jpeg)


>The free people’s state is transformed into the free state. Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-à-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ["community"] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French “Commune.”
What did Engels mean by this?

>pic unrelated

it's what comes up when you search for images of Engels
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>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.


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.


>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?

>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.

File: 1608528400178.png (773.13 KB, 1280x720, thumbs down.png)




People with blue eyes are more prone to alcohol addiction, which makes sense if you take into account their greater social inhibition. For many alcohol can be a way to feel free of inhibitions, so while darker eyed people may be more likely to drink to feel less depressed (if they are socially disadvantaged espec), light eyed people are more likely to drink to become more impulsive.

But ofc, blue eyes aren't making someone less impulsive. It's a Neanderthal trait, so anyone with it is more likely to have another set of Neanderthal traits, correlated with being antisocial.
9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


What about green eyes


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


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


>The author voices concern that the philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels failed to incorporate women's oppression into their critiques of capitalism.
What is "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" for $300, Trebek?
2 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


obligatory dumbass tankie post


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


>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.


>only "theorylets" dislike MLs


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.

File: 1608528393436.jpg (24.46 KB, 336x396, calc.jpg)


This is a thread to review/learn calculus.

We will all be reading through James Stewart's "Calculus" 4e edition.

see: http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=67AF6FA4D6DAB692F81A09B6A2EBCC7B

This is inspired by my need to review undergraduate mathematics due to work/school purposes. I'm a bit rusty and I've forgotten a ton of math.

We will start by doing problems from his algebra review pdf which is prep for the calc problems.
7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


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


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


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.


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

File: 1608528392715.jpg (231.02 KB, 750x915, 1606319516057.jpg)


Penguin Random House Parent Company buys Simon & Schuster
10 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


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?


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.


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.


What is the primary contradiction inside Academia? Is it between the Sciences and Humanities or something else?


>What is the primary contradiction inside Academia?


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


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.

Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]
[ 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