/edu/ - Education

A thread for sharing and discussing information related to the historical development of humanity. Here's my opening contribution
https://youtu.be/wnqS7G3LmMo?t=1619
timestamp is 27 minutes if the link doesn't work(skipping a lot of introduction).
I like the presenters maxim of
>geography determines social development and social development determines what geography means
Of course i'd replace 'geography' with 'material conditions' but that's a small nitpick in an otherwise great presentation. The other nitpick is the absence of the idea of a mode of production.

We all know how inefficient capitalism is at its uses of the geography/resources it potentially has at its disposal. The profit motive holds back the total use of geography that would be a huge boon on the level of the guns and boat revolution in the 1400s

I'm looking for Marinetti's Mafarka the Futurist novel but I cannot find it anywhere. I've searched libgen and archive (dot) org but I didn't find an English translation. Can anyone post a copy or at least a link to it?

date: 9-4kya

blue = european
orange = levant MENA
green = iran MENA

9kya, levants colonize europe and mix with european foragers. The mixing ultimately ends up being on somewhat even terms.

5kya, a mixed race group (half euro half iran) colonizes europe very hard, killing off both euro/levant males and essentially raping their women. These "aryans" introduce the indoeuropean languages into europe.

Every european today has these three ancestries in their genome. Some europeans, like italians and greeks, are more Middle Eastern than European.

The average Brit is 60% european, 40% MENA (30% levant and 10% iran)

In addition, Finns and Russians have about 10% Asian ancestry from Uralics.

https://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/review-poverty-philosophy-karl-marx
This article claims that Marx's "Poverty of Philosophy" is just a slanderous book that has nothing to do with Proudhon's real theories.

Marx doesn't properly quote Proudhon or openly strawmans him. His claims about Proudhon being bad economist in the begining of the book sound laughable since Proudhon was respected economist in his time.

>Comparing Marx’s “reply” to what Proudhon actually wrote, it is hard to take the former seriously. Once the various distortions and inventions are corrected, little remains. Proudhon was right to suggest Marx’s work was “a tissue of crudities, slanders, falsifications, and plagiarism.” (Correspondance [Paris: Lacroix, 1875] II: 267-8) Worse, Marx himself twenty years later embraces in Capital most of the positions he attacks Proudhon for holding in 1847.

>The dishonesty of The Poverty of Philosophy has distorted our view of Proudhon’s ideas and the time is long overdue for a revaluation of Proudhon and his contributions to anarchism and the wider socialist movement. This does not mean that Marx does not, occasionally, presents a valid point – most obviously, Proudhon’s opposition to strikes was wrong as subsequent anarchists recognised – it is just that these are frustratingly few in the midst of so much distortion. So, yes, Proudhon’s mutualism – a form of market socialism based on worker-run co-operatives – does need to be critiqued but Marx’s book is simply not that work.

are there any counter arguments to this?

Mod edit: Too many broken links, new thread here >>4881

ok /edu/ some of you may already know what this thread is, share your downloads.things to share:Movies, documentaries and mainly books.Anything related to socialism, anarchy, communism and so on.

Learn to use the catalog:
>>1677
>>1734

It seems like the Democrats have done a great job of pinkwashing their party, the amount of Gays I see worshipping any Dem candidate–including Biden, who supported both DADT and DOMA, is entirely annoying.

Why are Lesbians, Transbians, Trans*, and Bisexuals so much more radical overall than gay men? What's the issue?

I see so many LBTQ+ people in socialist groups like FRSO or anarchist collectives but my fellow gays would rather hole up in bars or form Stonewall caucuses to support homophobic democrats.

This question has been puzzling me lately. In my view because the most "raw" understanding we have of the world is our experience, which isn't mathematical (color, feelings, etc) which means that the world cannot be purely mathematical. I think then what we have is a "materialistic" world which can be described as mathematics. The maths isn't what is really happening, but it helps us in manipulation. Kind of like moving an desktop icon to the bin on your screen is just a metaphor for execution of code inside the computer. It would be a mistake to assume how the computer really works is icons on some screen, even if it helps us in manipulation.

Furthermore what makes me believe this more, is that sometimes scientific discoveries can have multiple interpretations. Quantum mechanics has like 4,and all of them are valid logically. Which one you chose depends more on your preference then anything. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have scientist debating the exact same theory. You may say one is more clean or beautiful or intuitive, but previous scientific discoveries did not care about that. Some weren't symmetrical as people wanted or intuitive, some were. So it's just speculation.

Where this bothers me though is simulations. Assume we model a person inside a computer by describing every particle in him through code. Would he "think"? Obviously I expect him to behave a certain way like a human do, but so would a simulated model of a tree, even if it wasn't really a tree. It does not mean the simulated person thinks. He just fools us, but has no understanding of the world himself.

What even gets me more confused is the fact that thoughts, as in consciousness and direct experience play a role in our behaviour. We all know the famous experiment of brain activity appearing milliseconds before a person is conscious of moving his finger, but this wasn't the only thing found. Consciousness can also cancel that movement as it desires. actually in practice the complexity, free will or how you want to call what makes humans unique is a reason why it is impossible with current understanding to predict human behaviour. Game theory only works if you assume people as psychopaths and shallow husk only interested in playing the game the game theorist made up. This makes the idea of unconscious mathematical digital human being the same as a regular human bit wonky, yet because I can't point to from where consciousness emerges, my position is wonPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Is college alegbra enough?

The regret and remorse lasts a lifetime. Graduated during last recession, no steady work for over a decade. I am the stereotype be they rightoid or STEMlord points to. It is correct, it is valid. Only debt remains. Do not sin like I have sinned. Only death will cleanse me of suffering. Just use the library. Only STEM will bring us a socialist future.