[ 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: 1645205348980.png (79.14 KB, 2034x2718, imperial surplus.png)


Revolutions in the core countries of the capitalist imperial order failed because the imperial bourgeoisie can survive temporarily even if they can't extract surplus from workers in the core. They can sustain them self on exploitation of the periphery for a little while, to weather revolutionary phases.

First there have to be revolutions in the periphery, either anti imperial bourgeois national revolutions, or socialist revolutions. Either of those will cut off the imperial bourgeoisie from backup surplus. That will give the proletariat in the core political leverage.

The limitations of this theory:
Ageing societies in 21th century will shift political leverage to the working class regardless. In 10 to 20 years this will only have historic value.

Criticisms of my theory are welcome
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Capital has effectively been deterritorialized which means the revolution will have to be deterritorialized but y'all ain't ready for that conversation.


Noooo fighting international capital with nationalist movements is totally the smart thing to do!


File: 1645214981978.png (398.14 KB, 500x374, ClipboardImage.png)

Elaborate for us brainlets


Embedding error.
You understand enough to reference Deleuze and Guattari. I'm not that familiar with what their version of it looks like (the nomadic war machine, which they discuss in A Thousand Plateaus), but our modern struggles and orgs need to coordinate internationally in order to disrupt capital. It shouldn't even be that hard in theory. The big thing is to look at global supply chains and understand where a company operates internationally so they can be disrupted at that scale. If you're gonna unionize your workplace the union should include people who work for the company all over the world. If there's revolutionary stirrings in one area and porky picks up and moves, people should be ready to stop them from settling elsewhere and take the opportunity to go on strikes or seize the MOP in other parts of their supply chain. The thing about capitalism becoming globalized is that people have their hands in pots all over the place. Disruption anywhere is bad news for lots of international conglomerates, which means that it should be possible to set up a kind of domino effect where a weakened situation would make it easier for workers to seize power elsewhere. We can't keep seeing the struggle in the vein of Socialism in One Country. Even if you tried to do Socialism in Once Company, you would have people seizing the MOP in many countries around the world.

The developing multipolar world also creates a problem for the international bourgeoisie because they are losing the ability to impose their rule at a global scale. Contrary interests makes it harder for different factions to coordinate and squash burgeoning revolutions. We should leverage that too.


Okay revisionist, now go read Enver Hoxha's Theory and practice of the revolution, then you might be cured.

File: 1640985151169.png (3.94 MB, 3756x1514, CapitalQuestion.png)


What are some real-world examples of this phenomenon? This is said to happen during the explanation of the Circuit of Productive Capital, but nothing comes to mind.
5 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Any reading material to explain the second one, since it isn't intuitive at first glance(what the hell is that K for example), or are these terms used in a volume I haven't gotten to yet?


pretty sure it’s the first chapter of volume 2


Didn't Marx say that an example is gold ? Also check another special case, namely services, such as transportation in which C' is something that is performed during the process.


The diagram on the right looks so horribly complicated compared to that of Marx's lol


Also read this small pamphlet by Lenin which explains the basics of the reproduction schema:


Hi everyone. Recently, as I surf the more esoteric corners of the web, I came across a Western academic paper which has this rather curious reference:
"E.Hoxha, Per Shkencen, 1976-1984” (On Science, 1976-1984), Shtepia Botuese “8 Nentori”, Tirana, 1985"
Presumably this book is from Enver Hoxha discussing stuff related to science. Now this is really curious since this does not show on sites like marxists.org. I wonder if anyone here has ebook version of this book ? Even in Albanian it would be fine, I can find ways to apply it to Google translate to read it. Thanks a lot.

File: 1644610966907.jpg (62.05 KB, 500x425, 20220123_230552.jpg)


How does the reserve army of labour theory fit into full employment during let's the post-war boom?
Also how would you respond to the critiques given forward by for example Paul Samuelson:
>Some economists such as Paul Samuelson have taken issue with Marx's concept of the reserve army of labour. Samuelson argues that much Marxian literature assumes that the mere existence of the unemployed drives down wages, when in reality is dependent upon contingent factors. (Are the unemployed easily available as replacements? Is the mere threat of replacement sufficient to get workers to accept a wage cut or does the employer have to demonstrate this is not an empty threat?) Samuelson argues that if prices also fall with money wage, then this does not mean real wages will fall. Samuelson also argues that wages will fall only until there are no more unemployed to bid it down: the reserve army can reduce wages only by decreasing its size. Samuelson's concludes that to mean that while the unemployed can reduce wages, they are incapable of reducing them to anywhere near subsistence levels before the unemployed all become employed.[9]


>have taken issue with Marx's concept
>argues that much Marxian literature



post your wikipedia copy-pastes on /leftypol/ or /siberia/, not here


You heard it mods


You probably already answered this question to a liberal. That is good, because this question is bugging me;
>Of course, this labour power, which remains the same under all its modifications, must have attained a certain pitch of development before it can be expended in a multiplicity of modes. But the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general. And just as in society, a general or a banker plays a great part, but mere man, on the other hand, a very shabby part,[14] so here with mere human labour. It is the expenditure of simple labour power, i.e., of the labour power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given. Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour.
Is this a critique to wage difference? Because I think that wage difference is important.
I read this in principles of political economy: (machine translated because I did not find in MIA)
>In attempting to establish the value of commodities by comparing the labor time spent by men engaged in different professions, and reducing this labor time to the socially necessary time, we run into a difficulty: are we entitled to equalize the hour of labor of the unskilled laborer with that of the lathe operator or the writer?

>If this were the case, the number of lathe workers would decrease and all would prefer unskilled work. It is not hard to see why. The skilled worker must devote a lot of time to learning the lathe operator's trade.

>Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Do not this apply to wage? If a skilled worker be paid the same as an unskilled worker, will it be worth it to study for a more skilled work?
KOF gameplay because I use Tor.



Nah. This is more study related, and leftypol is full of trolls.

File: 1608528098316.png (10.79 KB, 512x512, uni-painted-red.png)


This is a thread for communists who are (or are planning to) study at [b]unnamed[/b] universities the world over.

The thread is to serve as a mutual intellectual support system and meta-discussion for communist students to
· share resources for picking and learning your object of study
· discuss strategies for studies
· weekly rhythms and scheduling outside of the classroom
· organizing the student-body and/or spreading artistic agitation
· all while ultimately staying safe and completing your studies

49 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Anyone here with experience doing a phd in another country?
I miss being in university and I always sorta wanted to do a phd, but possibilities are pretty slim where I live (in my field, at least), so I am thinking about looking abroad. I am from Scandinavia and I studied Spanish at uni, so obviously it would also make sense to pursue a phd in a Spanish speaking country, I just don't know how or where to start..


A bunch of specialized high school kids tried this in NYC as well and nothing happened



just drop out en masse. fuck school


I'm from flag related and want to study pedagogy in Estonia


neoliberal hellhole where everything is privatised, surviving on capital injections from the West because Estonia is the "pilot program" and "exemplary post-Soviet country".


What do you, as a socialist, think of this book?
I am reading it with my friends and it kicks ass. It explains how nations fail financially by showing real world examples, and one of the examples are the South and North Korea, where it says that North Korea is poor because there is not private property, thus people cannot innovate. Another example is Somalia, where everything is decentralized so that the governmaent cannot control anything.
I still do not like private property nor centralization, but this book made my political ideology become a mixture of socialism and social democracy, where people who want to make a business can be part of the government and pay less taxes, (because he is already contributing to the government) so this is innovation without private property.
I am using Tor, so have a brazilian commie document with closed captions in english.
9 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


The mexican and american economic institutions are not really that different. Could you provide a concrete example of this alleged difference? Regarding the degree of reinvestment, Marx talks about this.


File: 1643487124537.png (238.06 KB, 394x300, 1410905520331.png)

>I am reading it with my friends
I wish my friends would read books with me


I know nothing about these shitholes, but I hope that these informations that I have found come handy;
We can start with this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law and this picture https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Countries_by_adherence_to_the_Rule_of_Law_%282017%E2%80%9318%29.png that for some reason does not occur in the english article. The picture says that Mexico adheres little to the Rule of Law, different from the USA. According to the Wikipedia articles, USA's HDI is .926, and Mexico's is .779. On the other hand, USA's GINI is 48.5 and Mexico's is 41.8.


If you're talking about rule of law here, then perhaps we're not talking about economic institutions exclusively, but about political, economic, and political economic institutions and how they interact.

It is true that in Mexico there is little rule of law. But again, the reason this is so is intricately related to Mexico's history (civil war etc) and culture, Mexico's development in relation to the US (industry, neoliberal imposition, CIA shenanigans, etc), Mexico's role in American drug market and consumption.

So sure, if Mexican institutions weren't corrupt, they would be much better, but the reason they can't improve significantly is not mentioned. Marxism gives you the tools to analyze things in relation, whereas here you are looking at things in isolation. It's good to have an understanding of things in isolation, but you also need to re-integrate that understanding to the context. Which is what I feel is missing from the book's tools for analysis.

Apply the analysis of the book to China. China is doing an amazing job. How did China build and maintain good institutions? Why are China's institutions, despite corruption being more common, have a higher benefit than american institutions? How come America's infrastructure is crumbling while Mexico is improving its infrastructure?

What do you think?


Sorry for the delay, I am such a donkey.
>Marxism gives you the tools to analyze things in relation, whereas here you are looking at things in isolation.
If I knew about the history of these countries I could use historical materialism. The few that I know is in Why Nations Fail, but maybe I can draw something;
Once I have learned that inequality is more evident in Bahia, Brazil because everything started there, (the tugas arrived in Bahia.) meaning that inequality stays like a "sickness."
Mexico had precious metals; the US, no. The colonialism system inventend by the spanish worked in Mexico; in the US, no. At the moment that the spanish could oblige the natives to work for them, they created a class system, where a minority dictate, and consequently establish the institutions, and a majority obeys. If the institutions are based on inequalities the country will be inequal, and the solution for this is establish new institutions?
But I could not think in why the US is inequal. It is because the government have little influence on the market?


I've finally read the big ones (Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrilland, Foucault, Derrida) and I'm just not seeing it. The only argument I usually see when they bother explaining why is that these authors """reject""" class struggle.
44 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Rejection of grand narratives being a grand narrative in itself is a meaningless aphorism
Yes that is the point, its not a thing.

>It also seems you have no standard or basis for what a post-modernist really is. 'People calling them that' is beyond retarded
Yes, exactly. "Postmodernism" doesn't exist. Its cope for people who refuse to read. Adorno, Horkeimer and Marcuse founded the frankfurt school, and are generally accepted as the fathers of post modernism.


To me modernism basically means the Zietgiest of the British empire. Post-Modernism means "rejects the anglo model". The idea that it is about grand narratives is a liberal perspective, like how liberals call communists "idealist" because "its just human nature" and "thats the way the world works". Its a reactionary defense of the grand narrative of Whig history and bourgeoisie progress.

Its tied up in the idea that WWII and fascism are directly outgrowths of capitalism and imperialism. The "modernist" model says that freedom and democracy defeated the fascists and America is number one because they are so good. Post-modernists reject this and their starting point is that "modernity" is a farce that is upheld by exploitation, that is pretty much their only commonality. That is why "post-modernists" are secret "cultural marxists", because they are "ideological" and cant accept the true "end of history". Saying that they reject grand narratives is people coping with their precise rejection of imperialist narratives.

Many of them are leftists and their criticism of Marxism-Leninism is an immanent critique of it that accepts its premises, its a type of critical support, not a rejection. Their goal is to integrate the scientific advances in the fields of social science, like psychology, advertising and propaganda, into the established theory of Marx and Lenin. This leads some of them to focus on particular parts that deal with their own subfields, and they adapt to that in a variety of ways depending on their individual education and politics. You can't really say "all post-modernists do X" because it is basically anyone who disagreed with American hegemony during the post war period and not a specific thing.

I think one should separate clearly between being a fellow traveler, and supporting the Soviet Union as a sovereign entity, and being a supporter of Stalinism as an interpretation of Marxism. Even Trotskyites, who derided the Soviet Union as a form of "state capitalism" nevertheless supported the socialist experiment there (which might have been reformed from inside). Frankfurt School theory was born in the revolutionary melee and had to at least give indications that it was on the side of the International and the world proletariat, even as it made biting criticisms of the state bureaucracy, authoritarianism and philosophical positivism.


>Rejection of grand narratives being a grand narrative in itself is a meaningless aphorism
Different anon weighing in on this.
I think this is largely correct tho, even if it's formulated as a dumb logic-bro gotcha. I would leave out the word "grand" and stick with the unmodified "narrative" and call it good.
My experience debating postmodernists is that they can dismiss everything I say by declaring it as a narrative, so therefor i should be able to dismiss what they say as a narrative as well. You can't declare narrative competition but put yours beyond question. That would be idealist, because nobody would accept that premise. If you can feel my scorn in these words, it's because post-modern philosophy is read without taking the material conditions into account. There was a devaluation of soft sciences in the 50s 60s and 70s and a big prestige gain in hard sciences, this lead to petty academic disputes being encoded into the theoretical structure. If you have ever wondered about the strange language style in post modern philosophy, it's aping tech-bro slang from the 50s, who got way more funding than the sociology department.

>So, although Marx never explicitly word-for-word acknowledged the interrelations of societal subjectivity

Marx's views on subjectivity are uncharacteristically idealist for good old Karl. He thought that there was a dialectic between objective and subjective, but that is wrong. Subjectivity is the result of people being subjected to class domination. It comes from people being subjects to royal fiefdoms or subjects in a bourgeois legal sense. The common sense understanding of subjectivity would be better framed as having a unique personal bias. Subjectivity is not personal, it's the imposition of a systemic bias, that makes people into subjects.

Objectivity is the attempt at removing all biases by various means like measurements like in science or the quest for universal truths in philosophy, it's not limited to eliminating only subjective biases from analysis.

>To me modernism basically means the Zietgiest of the British empire
No modernism was a revolt against the premodern remnants that was still prePost too long. Click here to view the full text.


I still disagree with this aphorism for the reasons I stated above. Just as I disagree with that Anon's reply entirely. He also thinks Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse are postmodernists, when none of them are (let alone the FOUNDERS thereof), and are just Frankfurt continentals. He's deeply confused, possibly from /pol/.

Even if we take your 'narrative as narrative' deference from modification, this is still a problem, because it's denying the context from which post-modernism stakes the specificities of its rejection. Post-modernism, in its rejection of (grand) narrativity, is a kind of socio-phenomenally mediated ontological skepticism, which is itself contingent by way of the internal process of its mediation, and as such, it cannot be axiomatic* nor prescribed as an ultimate social end or absolute* (* *which is what is meant when speaking in reference of 'Grand Narratives'), since the ever-presence of its possibility of self negation subsists via its self-destabilizing processual temporality (and so, it, that is, the rejection itself, can therefore be dethroned and de-standardized, and it never realizes any kind of necessary standardization of itself, all without recourse to any axiomatic necessitation in its functionality).

Now, a grand narrative is a 'category' (all things are, in some reducible sense, categorical), in that (and insofar as) it belongs to 'being a category', but the concept of 'category' is not, in itself, a grand narrative. That is, the definition, or essence of what a category is, formally, is not 'grand narrative' (i.e a cat is an animal but the formal concept of all that is animal is not 'cat').

What's more, from your reply I can gleam that you're an analytic cockshott anglo kinda' guy, since your misinterpreting the usage of the word subjectivity. When I'm referring to subjectivity, in an idealist sense or not, I mean 'subjectivity' as a shorthand taken from the history of continental philosophy ranging from antiquity and beyond, to mean cogito or personal ontology; I'm not thinking of subjectivity as if it means the subjecting thereof. The imposition of any kind of systemic bias relates to the personal, this doesn't mean a wholesale negation of the existence of the personal, and there is an a priori 'personal', the foundational sense of interrelation to the world regardless of all else. Conversely, objectivPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



File: 1643269434392.jpg (101.32 KB, 521x768, Neumann.jpg)


Now I know that this concept was first proposed by the father of eugenics and all around piece of shit Francis Galton, but I want to ask if IQ as such may be nonsense, does intellect still in some form exist?
For this I would look at someone like John von Neumann. Now there is no way that I look at him and say "He just put in more hours than me. Doesn't mean he is a genius by birth", because it does seem pretty clear that he had superior mental capacities than a "normal human".
I must acknowledge that my knowledge on the question of intelligence is pretty limited, so I don't know which viewpoints are taboo and which are accepted.
25 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


So you admit you've already read Linda Gottfriedson, yet simultaneously, originally, claimed not to know much about intelligence? lol


No, this thread was the first time I learned of her


Ah! Die Kreativität der deutschen Sprache


Since there was a misunderstanding of who posted what, my original question probably got branded as /pol/ trolling

however my question still remains:

how does dialectical materialism reject the concept that some people (not race) are more gifted than others in cognitive abilities?


Linda Gottfriedson's writings aren't just about race

File: 1633273718534.jpg (122.67 KB, 1024x1453, thally wally in color.jpg)

 No.8151[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

>Be Ernst Thälmann in the late 20s
>Leader of the KPD in Germany
>Get over 10% of the vote in 1928 (4th place)
>Get 13% (3rd place) but Hitler just came out of no where and got 18% (2nd place)
>It's obvious that Hitler is going to keep growing in power
>Hitler brags in speeches that he'll suppress every other party in the Reichstag once he wins
>He even wrote a book where he talks about bolshevism being the blood enemy of fascism
>Be Ernst Thälmann: massively popular, growing at a similar rate to Hitler, but don't know what to do
>Consult pre-1935 Comintern, guidelines only retards would follow (even Stalin admitted this later)
>"Whatever you do, don't make a coalition with the Social Democrats!" says Comintern
>Social Democrats are the only party bigger than the Nazis
>They are interested in forming a coalition with the KPD to beat Hitler
>"Nah, that sounds like social fascism to me"
>Thälmann decides to attack SD rather than Hitler
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
140 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Wtf, y Russia betray them?


>"Whatever you do, don't make a coalition with the Social Democrats!" says Comintern
Infighting between leftist leading to millions of communist to be tortured and murdered.


This. After Stalinization (if you'll pardon the term) it is well-known that the comintern went from a coordinating pole of internationalism to a cudgel of the USSR used against other CPs.


Ah yes, it was for precisely this reason that the great comrade Stalin expressed approval for its dissolution


but that's the point. if the strasserists were cultivated then it would have split the party and made Hitler's rise to power less likely.
>It's just meme politics
fair enough

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