[ 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


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


I am making this thread, because I need to learn study habits that actually improve my chance of getting a good grad in university. After having studied quite a lot for my thermodynamics course and feeling very confident that I will pass with a good grade and still fucking up so bad that I now having to worry about my future at university, I hope I can steer things around.
This is not about getting motivation to sit down for studying, but actually putting the knowledge to the paper. I really feel like shit right now, so any help would be greatly appreciated
10 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>the most intelligent people in society avoid professions that require very sophisticated mental labor altogether, and choose "boring" work
Interesting. Could you elaborate


>Interesting. Could you elaborate
There isn't much to go on except for studies made that involved cognitive aptitude testing. The result: the people that scored unusually high (the top 5 percentile), had really mundane jobs like mailman or office clerk. None of them held positions like a high powered CEO nor did they have much of academic achievements. I wouldn't read to much into it, it's not very scientific, but it indicates that our societal institutions probably are hostile to intelligence and galaxy brained smarty pants avoid them.


But didn't you just state that we can't measure intelligence?


File: 1643215304803.pdf (843.06 KB, 208x255, CALNEW~2.PDF)

I'm in the same boat as you OP. I literally thought I was at the top of my class and doing well too, until I got back my final grades. Don't worry, we can learn from our mistakes.

This book is from an American college perspective, but I think even if you're not American the fundamentals should still be the same: "How to be a Straight A Student" by Cal Newport

Take some time to reflect on where you could've improved and make a strategy for next semester.

It really comes down to this


That book looks worth a read. Thanks and yeah I hope I can learn from my mistakes.

File: 1643070081073.jpg (199.84 KB, 1000x666, Engels-statue.jpg)


How do you deal with someone that starts waffling and making no clear points at all in a discussion? And also will double down? And doesn't involve just dropping it?


File: 1643079389359.png (347.82 KB, 1085x509, ClipboardImage.png)

- Perhaps ask them elucidate their thoughts more clearly.
- Maybe use a syllogism to show their logic does not make sense.
- Or sumarize its flaws and incoherence in an adequately succinct way so that even the most braindead of morons can get it.


Hegel’s ​Phenomenology of Spirit
Presented by Todd McGowan

What follows are some very accessible lectures that will walk you through The Phenomenology. It's a great place to start, not only with Hegel, but even philosophy generally. Don't be scared off if you're a layman. Included along with the lectures are a handy glossary of terms and McGowan's own summary. Everything you need to climb the mountain to Absolute Knowing.

Sorry if the recordings are wonky and i had to cut some of these in half due to file limits
10 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1625547775244.mp4 (54.22 MB, 910x512, 7b-Absolute Knowing.mp4)

The End.

Wonder if anyone will actually make it all the way through.


Very useful PDFs, thanks.naziNazi


Can this thread be merged into >>4337 please?
This thread has good resources and is already dying without any discussion. It would be a good addition to the thread above. Many thanks.


Thank you, I will have a look at them some time.


File: 1608528064617-0.jpg (124.93 KB, 449x600, 8955.jpg)


To bring up my back ground before getting into the topic at hand. I am a historian and have been interested in seeing how we humans throughout history cope with deadly diseases. As we have seen in recent times of deadly diseases, such as the "spanish" flu, ebloa, sars, etc.

Now to focus on thentopic, humans throught hidtory tend to personify diseases. One of the best examples woth the related pictures are from the bubonic plague. Where medieval artists would cope with the death by creating personfications of the plague. This is what intrests me is why do we cope with the death by making into a person? I would like to hear from some of you on this, for its an interesting subject.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


You just wanted to make a topic about corona-chan didn't you, admit it.


There is already a thread about that on /GET/ already and lets be honest. This is only but another example of what I am trying to tall about. Because during the internet age we have been making art of things like the ebola or now the corona virus. I wanted to have a discussion about why we personify these deadly dieases as we did throughout history.

This might be the case, I wonder what makes us as humans feel more at ease being able to see the virus as a humanoid. I know from what happened in the mid 14th century with the black plague it drastically changed the world in those five years it lasted. Art changed showing the depiction of death, as a sort of comforting thing.


Here's something for you; Apollo started out as such a personification


It could be theoretically argued that the tendency to personify things extends outwards to all boundaries of human existence, as a sort of inevitable anthropocentrism which permeates all facets of our perception due to qualities which are inescapably ingrained in our consciousness: i.e. that a human recognizes their own humanity, as its species essence, is a rather unique feature, even though it might sound mundane. The symbolic realm arguably derives from this, and if said realm does indeed owe its origins to such a tendency, then it would make sense for it to always be 'textured' with the recurrence of specifically human imagery. Even animals, as we often depict them, are more or less projections of our own sense of mythos… representational metaphors–a fox, for example, is not 'just a fox', but is connotated as 'sneaky, mischievous, suave–an archetypal trickster', etc.
People will probably accuse me of coming off as overly Jungian, but I'm not really much of a subscriber to him, that is, outside of the base realization that there's probably some kind of innate anthropocentric lens which colors our figurative ideals of reality. So at any rate, I don't think the phenomenon spoken of here is so exclusive to death, although at the same time, I guess the 'coping theory' isn't mutually exclusive with what I'm saying either.


*is so particular to death

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