/edu/ - Education

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."

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.

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

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

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!

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.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2383939/

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.

>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?

>>982469
>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.

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?

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.