/edu/ - Education

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.

This is a video looking at the right-wing history channel WhatifAltHist, and the broader trends in historical studies that it represents.

https://youtu.be/7ZVrtwJGams

what do you think about the sokal affair?

idk much about sociology or poster modernism but it feels like an attack on leftism? even though alan sokal himself says he was a leftist and was trying to dissuade it from going somewhere weird

but all the "destroys postermodernism" youtube thumbnails i see when i search this, eerily remind me of the other rightwing shit of "destroys sjws" type

i saw a few lines and it just reads like incomprehensible jargon? i couldn't tell if it was parody honestly if i didn't know, scientific mumbo jumbo

Post dumb pseudoscientific nonsense, poorly-written pop-sci and other junk science topics to make fun of and critique

Choose a real pro-socialist speech given historically (translations allowed) that you could give on a soapbox in a park or square today.
Bonus style points for speeches performed over a century ago.
Triple points for attaching recorded audio.

Who is the left wing equivalent of Nietzsche? Who is the edgiest leftist philosopher or philosopher who can be read and/or interpreted as left wing?

Foucault? Zizek? D&G? Sorel (pre-fash)? Even someone like Plato, Plotinus, or Spinoza?

How much did the german historical school of economics influence the russian revolutionaries? Did they reject it or embrace some of it? I do know lenin "admired" the german empires economics system, and I do know bukharin wrote a critique or etc on it but besides that how much influence was there?

>Blanquism refers to a conception of revolution generally attributed to Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805–1881) that holds that socialist revolution should be carried out by a relatively small group of highly organised and secretive conspirators.
<Blanquism is distinguished from other socialist currents in various ways: on the one hand, Blanqui did not believe in the predominant role of the proletariat, nor did he believe in popular movements—instead he believed that revolution should be carried out by a small group of professional, dedicated revolutionaries, who would establish a temporary dictatorship by force. This dictatorship would permit the implementation of the basis of a new order, after which power would then be handed to the people.
>In another respect, Blanqui was more concerned with the revolution itself rather than the future society that would result from it—if his thought was based on precise socialist principles. Blanquist thought rarely goes so far as to imagine a purely socialist society. For Blanquists, the overturning of the bourgeois social order and the revolution are ends sufficient in themselves, at least for their immediate purposes.

If the proletariat is not a viable revolutionary subject, maybe the revolutionary subject is the self selected revolutionary himself or a vanguard of likeminded people?

Why was Blanquism never persued in any significant way? Maybe Blanqui is the real thinker for our times if the Hegelian-Marxist notion of a revolutionary subject is dead?

Any explanation for why the function on the right is correct would be great