/edu/ - Education

>>9701
This is what he does, he reads articles on stream and he reads them well. What a weak piece of "evidence".

Lots of cope in this thread. Why is this in /edu/?

>>9903
It started out as a relevant thread and then got derailed.

>>9701
The accused person in question does not have many opinions in common with the Infrared Collective except interest in conservative philosophy, which is not very abnormal, even on the far left. Marcuse and Adorno spoke positively of those thinkers, for example. And a germ theory of ideology is a silly sort of cancel culture, that if prosecuted to the end totally would warrant the cancellation of Marx himself.

>>4513
> Post capitalism and we gain no pleasure from our fake relationships with pets, dogs will just go extinct
<Ignoring historicity of animals/human cohabitation
Man, going back through these old threads is like a fever trip. I cant believe I was duped by such a pseud view point

>>20530
Checked. I liked No Longer Human when I read it a few years ago. I haven't read anything else by him though.

OBLOMOV

Maybe you're like that because you want to be like that.

>>20528
Well, Goethe's The Sorrow of Young Werther was very influential in it's time. Check out the wiki page on it.

>>20532
Oblomov is a beautiful novel I wouldn't be opposed to reading again. I recommend it any anons reading this.
>>20534
Meme answer. I read that one in high school (of my own choice, not assigned reading). If you can't sympathize with or relate to Werther, it becomes very dull reading, which was the case for me.

If one considers Nazi Germany socialist for using dirigisme during a war, then one must consider the Allied powers just as if not more so; therefore, the word "socialism" loses all practical meaning.

>>20514
I remember hearing once that Hitler supposedly claimed in a dinner that the result of the five year plans Stalin introduced created an industrial goliath "greater than even the Reichswerke Hermann Göring."

Now, presuming this is real it's not entirely out of the ordinary and reflects the frankly bizarre relationship Fascism had with the USSR; it was equal parts realpolitik and also the arbitrary whims of the various Fascist dictators. ᴉuᴉlossnW, for example, claimed that Stalin had essentially created "Russian Fascism" or "National Bolshevism" during their initial years trading with one another. Funny enough I think ᴉuᴉlossnW even claimed that Stalin's own purge of his political enemies was not all that different from his, the difference was that Stalin being the Russian "Leader" was thus influenced by some "Mongol Spirit" and was reflected in him ordering mass executions, whereas Italians used the more "refined" and "civilized" method of forcing individuals to drink castor oil and shit out their innards in order to publicly humiliate them.

It should be noted that Fascists tried to apply at least some kind of bizarre "Fascist Analysis" to Stalin. For example, I believe it was Ribbentrop who excitedly claimed that, in fact, Stalin was a nationalist who was going to build a "Great Russia" of sorts. He elaborated (or maybe it was Hitler himself) that there was in fact a wedge within the Communist movement that on one side had Stalin as some sort of "modern day Genghis Khan" (the context in which it was in implied that was a positive thing) who would expand Russia's power and territory, versus Trotskyist "Internationalists" who sought to ferment global revolution and were part of some international Jewish Conspiracy. Essentially they saw "Socialism in One Country" as not altogether contradictory with what Fascists wanted, and Fascists themselves liked to think they were "pragmatists" who could take bits and pieces from liberalism or socialism to "make it work."

Hitler's own opinion on Stalin, while colored by the fact that he was on meth and would vasscillate wildly between one statement or another, was that himself, ᴉuᴉlossnW, and Stalin were the three most historically significant figures of the 20th century. Which, I mean, given the level of power Stalin was perceived as having within the USSR, makes sense from a Fascist perspectivePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Stalin and Hitler were the same
We’ve known this

Hitler praised everything from Islam to the British Empire to the America's westward expansion. He was, like many modern fascists, a fanboy for everything perceived to be strong/masculine with no regard for ideological consistency or coherence.

Stalin was BASED. Stalin's "dictatorship" was exaggerated by CIA. Stalin rejected his own cult of personality and viewed it as a relic of Russian peasant backwardness, but the party forced it on him anyways. Stalin wanted to form an anti-fascist alliance with the capitalist states of Europe, but they rejected his olive branch, because they were thirsty for the genocide of slavs, jews, roma, and the death of socialism in general. They allowed hitler to commit the holocaust to own stalin, and then at the last minute, when stalin bought time with the M-R pact, while fighting fascist Finland, those same capitalist states created a myth that Stalin and Hitler were best friends. Nothing is more devious, more reactionary, than the myth that Stalin and Hitler are twin dictators. You might as well be a holocaust denier and a nazi if you suggest this, so blind do you have to be to history.

>>19231
>One can give more over a lifetime than they can give in onetime sacrifice of their life usually
Do you just assume that to conscious egoists life has so little value that sacrificing it isn't a loss for them at all? You're thinking of the self-interest in purely market terms. Self-interest is never limited to a mere accumulation of capital, it has no limits.

People are already egoistic.

<But the one who acts from love of filthy profit indeed does it on his own behalf, since in any case there is nothing that one does not do for his own sake, among other things, everything done for the glory of God; but because he seeks profit, he is a slave of profit, not beyond profit; he is one who belongs to profit, to the moneybag, not to himself; he is not his own. Doesn’t a person whom the passion of greed rules follow this master’s orders, and if one time a weak good-naturedness creeps over him, doesn’t this appear as an exceptional case of precisely the same sort as when devout believers are sometimes abandoned by their Lord’s guidance and beguiled by the wiles of the “devil?” So a greedy person is not a self-owned person, but a slave, and he can do nothing for his own sake, without at the same time doing it for his master’s sake—precisely like the God-fearing person.

>>19231
>but the capitalists decide to buy you out for more than you'd ever get under communism, doesn't it logically self-interestedly make sense to sell out?
Again, there are other desires people pursue. And they're not limited to the profit. But you can do whatever you want, there is no "holy book" of egoism. Some people may prioritize things other than profit and that's still a parfectly egoistic behavior.

>>19083
>spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
What's the point of that? To be an exploiting cunt?

Because the issue with Capitalism is not a moral failing of individuals(that porkies are inherently bad) but that they must partake in economic exploitation in order to exist; otherwise no profit would be made. Likewise, as constant capital accumulates(i.e machinery and other resources to increase labor productivity), you create more products for the proletariat to consume, but employ less wage-laborers who would be the buyers of such profits, causing decreasing profit rates eventually leading to crisis.

You could have the most compassionate humans in the world running this system(Marx's arguments in Capital already assume that things are being paid for at value and not below it) and it would still end in crisis eventually under its own economic laws. That's why it's not moralist.

Capitalism is inefficient.
The exploitation of the "needy" is inefficient
The abolition of these inefficiencies means more resources for the vast majority of people.
More resources for everyone means more resources for each individual. Including you, the reader.

from doing a quick Google search, it looks like a pig-latin-esque language game.

bump because why not

Got this biography of Marx that might be useful. It's going for context around Marx developing his ideas.

>>9444
>I asked for advice once to see if there was some common reading guide and I got called a retard and told the book was the reading guide
yeah these stinky NEET anons think everyone is jobless and childless like them. Like these motherfuckers don't understand that the only chance I have to read Marx is on a treadmill thursday night

>>9444
2 years too late but what do you mean by "common reading guide"? If you mean an order of reading, the Marx/Engels reader is already that. Using this https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Marx-Engels-Reader.pdf as a reference, there also seem to be some annotations giving context.

V Time and Space
Duhring argues in favor of a immovable mover. Engels retorts. We can imagine infinity going one way, says Duhring, say from this point in time, but this point in time presupposes by the same logic an infinite sequence of past times before it. Such a thing is impossible, claims Duhring, hence there must've been some point when history started. Kant already showed that you can argue for and against the existence of infinity from 'common knowledge', so the contradiction within infinity as a concept is something that you have to accept, as Hegel does.

<"Thesis: The world has a beginning in time, and with regard to space is also limited. — Proof: For if it is assumed that the world has no beginning in time, then an eternity must have elapsed up to every given point of time, and consequently an infinite series of successive states of things must have passed away in the world. The infinity of a series, however, consists precisely in this, that it can never be completed by means of a successive synthesis. Hence an infinite elapsed series of worlds is impossible, and consequently a beginning of the world is a necessary condition of its existence. And this was the first thing to be proved. — With regard to the second, if the opposite is again assumed, then the world must be an infinite given total of co-existent things. Now we cannot conceive the dimensions of a quantum, which is not given within certain limits of an intuition, in any other way than by means of the synthesis of its parts, and can conceive the total of such a quantum only by means of a completed synthesis, or by the repeated addition of a unit to itself. Accordingly, to conceive the world, which fills all spaces, as a whole, the successive synthesis of the parts of an infinite world would have to be looked upon as completed; that is, an infinite time would have to be regarded as elapsed in the enumeration of all co-existing things. This is impossible. For this reason an infinite aggregate of actual things cannot be regarded as a given whole nor, therefore, as given at the same time. Hence it follows that the world is not infinite, as regards extension in space, but enclosed in limits. And this was the second thing" (to be proved).
>These sentences are copied word for word from a well-known book which first appeared in 1781 and is called: Kritik der reinen Vernunft by Immanuel Kant, where all and sunPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Thank you

VII&VIII Organic world
NB I think that every socialist should read some natural philosophy. Darwin is on my reading list since a long time, but I've been reading Haeckel recently now and then and it's a nice break to have philosophy grounded somewhat in science rather than v.v. i.e. becoming idealist. The modern theory of revolution differs from its Darwinian beginnings

Duhring straw-mans Darwin would be the summary of the chapter. I'm extracting some interesting paragraphs, not much else, since most of what Engels argues for is standard biology in most high schools already (I hope so…)

On Darwin:
>Darwin brought back from his scientific travels the view that plant and animal species are not constant but subject to variation. In order to follow up this idea after his return home there was no better field available than that of the breeding of animals and plants. It is precisely in this field that England is the classical country; the achievements of other countries, for example Germany, fall far short of what England has achieved in this connection. Moreover, most of these successes have been won during the last hundred years, so that there is very little difficulty in establishing the facts. Darwin found that this breeding produced artificially, among animals and plants of the same species, differences greater than those found in what are generally recognised as different species. Thus was established on the one hand the variability of species up to a certain point, and on the other the possibility of a common ancestry for organisms with different specific characteristics. Darwin then investigated whether there were not possibly causes in nature which — without the conscious intention of the breeder — would nevertheless in the long run produce in living organisms changes similar to those produced by artificial selection. He discovered these causes in the disproportion between the immense number of germs [in the original Keime, ‘shoots’,‘embryos’] created by nature and the insignificant number of organisms which actually attain maturity. But as each germ strives to develop, there necessarily arises a struggle for existence which manifests itself not merely as direct bodily combat or devouring, but also as a struggle for space and light, even in the case of plants. And it is evident that in this struggle those individuals which have some individual peculiarity,Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

That's a wrap for these chapters. Main points: contra metaphysics in natural sciences and mathematics. Introduction deals with a materialistic and historic analysis of development of scientific socialism. I know I write comments or expositions rarely but this is mostly because the work is quite understandable. I only sometimes write what I had thought during the time of reading. Paragraphs are quoted because they have to be. Alright see you tomorrow hopefully! Good night anons.

>>20218
Tankyoo :)

If u extrapolate from the movement of the stars away from each other, you can make an educated guess that they were all much closer to each other in the past. Further evidence suggests that all matter was concentrated in a single point at a time.

Time, however, is not a constant basis. Einstein theorized, and it has been shown by many experiments and observations, that time is a property of space. We can determine from Einstein's theories that time "slows down" as mass and energy increases. This means that as we approach singularity of all matter into a single point, time passes infinitely slowly (does not move). This is why the universe can't go "before" the big bang, and must have a starting point. This is the point at which dialectical tells us comrade Stalin created the universe.

Also apologies for my English

>>20823
Mainlanders vs anglos

>>20823
Yeah that image proves my point