[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / 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.)
Required: 3 + 1 =

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

| Catalog | Home

 No.16427[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Looking at the recent advancements in the field of AI that perpetually make it into the news I thought it was appropriate to make a thread about artificial intelligence. Even if you believe the recent news on AI are merely sensationalism and that we will head into another “AI Winter” soon, I think it would be interesting to discuss the existence of artificial intelligence and “its labor” from a Marxist perspective and talk about where human beings and their labor fits into a society where AI manages to do a lot of the things that for a long time where believed only a human could do. That aside, I just find it reasonable to remain aware and therefore discuss the impact of current state of the art machine learning models that produce photos with ever increasing striking realism.

On that note, I would also like to direct you to the two threads on consciousness I made since that is related and people were also talking about artificial intelligence in there
Current thread: >>>/edu/9849
Last thread: https://archive.ph/LSgow
185 posts and 36 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Computer science is a well paid field dude.


im so tired of the "intelligence" discourse


can we move on and start talking about things that actually matter like power and surveillance



incredibly funny that gpt was specifically trained on highly-upvoted reddit posts, so everything it makes reads like a /u/unidan post before he got jailed for election fraud, and the direct result is a bunch of the most vacuous nerds on the planet are convinced it's literally God

File: 1608528163862.jpg (866.36 KB, 1100x1635, Catalyst_v4n1-promo_cover.jpg)


10 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Volume 5 Issue 4


Posted the wrong one
Volume 5 Issue 4 PDF


New volume is up


any 2023 ones?



File: 1685062445207.webm (14.78 MB, 384x384, chooseyourlenin.webm)


I can think of a few, but not an exhaustive catalog:

>Lenin getting smuggled back into Russia by the Germans because they thought he would destabilize Russia

>The French King helping the American Revolution to own the British
>The Russian Empress showing the Francisco De Miranda (Venezuelan revolutionary and independence leader) favor in her court and protecting him from the Spanish crown by giving him permission to hide in Russian embassies all over Europe
>The British blockading Haitian ports to own the French, which prevented the French from coming back in and reimposing slavery when they were most able to.
>The Americans supporting New World Independence movements in general against old world monarchies, both for ideological reasons (bourgeois republican ideals) and opportunistic reasons (trade).
>The Americans trading with Haitian slave rebels against the wishes of the French, because it was profitable, even though they themselves were slave owners.

Most of these are from bourgeois republican revolutions against monarchies, or from slave uprisings (in the case of Haiti). Only Lenin fits a communist version of this happening, but I'm sure there are other examples.
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1685083643151.png (130.94 KB, 474x300, ClipboardImage.png)




Russian-US conflict in the middle east leading to a strengthened position for the Kurdish independence movement.


Possibly all of them?


>WW1: Germans fund Lenin, leading to October revolution
>WW2: Germans occupy Europe and attack USSR, paving way for Eastern bloc


>strengthened position for the Kurdish independence movement.
be careful anon, you'll summon the "kurds are actually imperialist lapdogs" schizos

File: 1679069217312.jpg (95.97 KB, 960x611, cc.jpg)


Has anyone here read any of post-marxist Cornelius Castoriadis' critiques of Marx? I feel that in some places he gets the criticisms right, and in other places very wrong. Note that Castoriadis still remained a kind of anarchist.

Something I feel he got right:
- Whereas Marx claims that tech reduces surplus, by claiming that fixed costs would increase over time, and should lead to a reduction in variable costs like labour, Castoriadis criticises this heavily and says that tech provides opportunities to reduce fixed costs, and subsequently can actually increases the number of jobs

Neutral on this one (looking to hear what other people think)
- Castoriadis is highly critical of dialectics as a whole and suggests that Marx is claiming that simply because two things have tension with each other that they are opposites. Especially in the modern world where the lines between workers and capitalists have blurred such that we are all a sort of 'executant' now (think for example, a worker who owns company stock in the company they work out, takes on administrative tasks, or acts as a sort of middleman like a middle manager) and therefore suggests that bureaucracy is the largest enemy we have today that actually unites us on a human level, rather than individual classes of people. Institutions are socially constructed but have taken on a life of their own due to our alienation.

I think he's definitely wrong on this one:
- Tendency of rate of profit to fall. He analyzed this after the war when it was going back up, but it has continued to fall even lower after that point. However he definitely was right to suggest that capitalism was far more resilient than Marx made out

I'm taking most of these points from 'Modern Capitalism and Revolution'. Castoriadis essentially argues that Marx is outdated and that the system has already transformed from a simple capitalist struggle of 'the one who does not own but works' and 'the one who owns and does not work' into something a lot messier, which Keynes was (according to him) better equipped to analyse.
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>Especially in the modern world where the lines between workers and capitalists have blurred such that we are all a sort of 'executant' now (think for example, a worker who owns company stock in the company they work out, takes on administrative tasks, or acts as a sort of middleman like a middle manager) and therefore suggests that bureaucracy is the largest enemy we have today
Reactionary deflection


Nice, this is perhaps the first time I see a thread about Castoriadis, who is a pretty overlooked thinker.

For context, he founded the group Socialisme ou Barbarie after being disillusioned with Troskyism in 1949. They wrote a theoretical journal and expounded a pro workers' council stance. This group was pretty influential on Guy Debord, around the time the SI took a more Marxist turn.
After the dissolution of SoB in 1967, Castoriadis became more critical of Marxism, nevertheless without totally repudiating Marx, and developed a pretty radical theory about democracy and autonomy by returning to the Greeks. He was also a psychoanalyst and an economist.
I haven't read much besides a few articles there and there, but I recommend vid related, a subtitled interview of him about democracy in Ancient Greece, he knows his shit, and illustrates how much "representative democracy" is a joke, a "liberal oligarchy" in his own words.

>Whereas Marx claims that tech reduces surplus, by claiming that fixed costs would increase over time, and should lead to a reduction in variable costs like labour, Castoriadis criticises this heavily and says that tech provides opportunities to reduce fixed costs, and subsequently can actually increases the number of jobs

The World Bank makes data available about gross fixed capital formation as a % of GDP, dating back from the 1960s-1970s.
I plotted the data for the USA, China, India, Italy and Kenya with this URL: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.GDI.FTOT.ZS?locations=US-CN-IN-IT-KE
You can see the picture isn't so clear-cut: for China and India, fixed costs have increased over time. For the USA and Kenya, they stayed relatively stable. For Italy, fixed costs have decreased. It's interesting to note there is a big unemployment problem in Italy.
I don't know what to make of this, but even if bureaucrats can create bullshit jobs, does it mean that we should? Especially in an era where ecological disasters are looming and people don't even know why they commute 5 days a week anymore.

>Castoriadis is highly critical of dialectics as a whole and suggests that Marx is claiming that simply because two things have tension with each other that they are opposites.

No one has been able to explain Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


That pic is wrong on so many levels, jesus. Stop spreading your miscomprehension as education tools.


psychoanalysis is pseud bs


bumping this thread just to troll the /ukraine/ LARPers a little bit

File: 1685039728906-0.png (1.93 MB, 1000x2200, MRPact.png)

File: 1685039728906-1.png (549.45 KB, 996x777, mrpact_highres.png)


every time a liberal discovers that the molotov ribbentrop agreement happened, they think they've discovered some hidden gem, and the key to deboonking communism and making it a pariah in the arena of public opinion.

Perhaps they are correct.

See, the real truth behind the molotov ribbentrop pact or the winter war doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the USSR was trying to buy time, cut off potential corridors of german invasion, etc. etc. What matters is that the liberals have a simple, and easily disseminated narrative that can be repeated much faster than the counter-arguments. In short, they have a "Big Lie."

The "big lie" is a propaganda technique that involves telling a bold, often outrageous untruth as if it were fact. The idea behind this method is that by making such outlandish claims, they will stick in people's minds more than smaller lies because of their shock value, even if there is no evidence for them. Over time, these lies can become widely accepted as truth simply due to repetition. This concept was famously used during World War II by Nazi Germany's leader Adolf Hitler who said: “The bigger the lie, the more easily it will be believed.” The term has since been adopted by other groups and individuals in order to manipulate public opinion on various issues.

The MR Pact is a "big lie." How is it told? It is told in a very simple form: Hitler and a Stalin admired each other, came together and rape poland, and only ever fought in WW2 because they disagreed on how best to divide poland.

With this big lie, you have a narrative where the last world war was entirely caused by "National Socialists" and "Regular Socialists" coming together to rape "Innocent Poland." and then the brave liberal democracies with their freedom-loving capitalist economies intervening to save everyone from the holocaust. In this narrative stalin is an opportunist who joined the winning side.

This is how most people in the EU/US/UK/Australia/Canada/New Zealand have come to see WW2. Why? Because it is convenient for their broader anti-proletarian agenda of keeping their economies in private hands.
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


The liberals are not uneducated, they are miseducated.


wtf is up with schizo anons lately?


Not sure anon, why don't you look in the mirror and tell us?


Why do you give a fuck that anyone gives a fuck


>implying liberalism (in the sense of bourgeois nationalist chauvinist republicanism) is not the dominant ideology of the ruling class

File: 1647357862700.jpg (20.88 KB, 254x400, 9780300257304.jpg)


Has anyone read picrel yet? Is it any good, or just more Applebaum tier trash? Obviously I'm not expecting a Leftist take, but anything critical of the usual "the people rose up to overthrow le evil tyranny" narrative would be good, even from the right. I think I heard the WarNerd guys rexerence it, so thought maybe it's not complete shit.


no its very, very good deffo recommend


Mencius Moldbug begins with a great diagnosis of the modern state of affairs which calls back to the work of Debord and Castoriadis: nobody seems to 'own' (by which he means, to be responsible for) the state. He wishes to re-unite property with its owner, such that control and ownership once again become 'the same'.

>So this is the formalist manifesto: that the US is just a corporation. It is not a mystic trust consigned to us by the generations. It is not the repository of our hopes and fears, the voice of conscience and the avenging sword of justice. It is just an big old company that holds a huge pile of assets, has no clear idea of what it’s trying to do with them, and is thrashing around like a ten-gallon shark in a five-gallon bucket, red ink spouting from each of its bazillion gills.

>To a formalist, the way to fix the US is to dispense with the ancient mystical horseradish, the corporate prayers and war chants, figure out who owns this monstrosity, and let them decide what in the heck they are going to do with it. I don’t think it’s too crazy to say that all options—including restructuring and liquidation—should be on the table.

>Whether we’re talking about the US, Baltimore, or your wallet, a formalist is only happy when ownership and control are one and the same. To reformalize, therefore, we need to figure out who has actual power in the US, and assign shares in such a way as to reproduce this distribution as closely as possible.

However in this argument he reveals his remaining faith in Hoppean natural law, which even Mises scoffs at in his book on socialism, quite blatantly admitting, like Kropotkin, that property *is* theft. The leviathan cannot be owned (in his sense of being equal to 'control'), as it's too large and bureaucratic. This is a phantom ideal. People will own/control what they can, and fail to own/control what they can't. The 'cathedral' he talks about is nothing other than the state of affairs in which the leviathan *cannot* be controlled. It cannot even be 'liquidated', because it is a huge Nothing, as all property is.

>A formalist is only happy when ownership and control are one and the same.

reveals the implicit ideal that
>everything must remain under control!
but it can't happen. Some things must always fall by tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
11 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1684941721026.jpeg (177.05 KB, 1176x1125, neor.jpeg)


What has to be wrong with your brain to waste your time to analyize a morbidly obesse fox news addict american who named himself after mouldy insects ffs… There are a million weird shizos like this trapped away in american basements and mothers homes all over their nation..
It is insane to encourage this kind of shit on the main board IMHO. At leas relegate it to /ITG/, this schizophrenic nonsense is not worthy of spreading to others.


maybe so


i think op should elaborate more on the in search of lost property point + how this connects to Being


<It is the property that is lost, not the owner. The property has already ceased to exist as property, due to lack of care, lack of ownership. The present age seems like a lifeless desert, but it’s only here in these arid wastes where truly noble souls can burst forth. when even Being becomes Nothing, when we enter abject meaningless and there’s no truth, no revealing, all is concealed — which is the condition of possibility for the most radical shining forth ever to occur.
This is petite bourgioise idealism that Marx criticizes in The Germany Ideology
Try again next time

 No.15226[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

The history of philosophy is the history of the will-to-power coming to know itself and affirm its own validity against the lies of sophistry; a therapeutic endeavour of spirit against idealistic bullshit which produce narratives that serve the powers that be. In this regard, the task of philosophy has been fulfilled, completed by Nietzsche & Marx, and the domination of nature by man has found its final vessel in cybernetics. As Wittgenstein writes, "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." Philosophy itself has been embroiled in an endless struggle against itself over the same questions for centuries, but never coming any closer to real answers to those questions, with each generation it recedes into more meta-argumentation than before.Given that philosophy has been completed, what remains of the initial questions which plagued the pre-socratics? What is it to be? Why is there something rather than nothing? These are questions philosophy has actually left outstanding, problems that it just isn't equipped to deal with, as the pursuit of 'wisdom' (which reveals itself to merely be a facet of the will-to-power).

Let us ask the question another way. What is the will-to-power? The will-to-power is the actualising force of the ego onto the surroundings. In modern life, the world accelerates faster and faster as humans seek more and more to actualize their will onto the world. The lie we tell ourselves is that the faster we go, the more we can experience and enjoy. The active element of human life becomes frantic, restless, directionless, a mere reflection of the passionless bourgeois consumerism of the times. Though we experience 'leisure' it is nothing more than the brief respite from work, in fact many are compelled to work through this leisure time (productivity culture). We see that the vita activa without the contemplative element leads to a dead, unreflective life, and those who live under it become mere sheep. The man-as-labour metaphysics is not merely descriptive but prescriptive. You WILL work. You WILL be your labour.

As Byung-Chul Han writes
>"History – which, according to Hegel, is a history of freedom – will not be completed as long as we remain the slaves of work. The domination of work makes us unfree. The opposition between master and slave cannot be sublated by everyone becoming a slave of work. It will only be removed if the slave actually transfPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
163 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1684667753121.jpeg (353.01 KB, 1366x2048, FtmJZh9aMAIryaq.jpeg)

ok skimmed this thread. at first i thought there is not input for me to make here, though there seems to be some things after all. gunna write this down bcs it touches points that i am a bit ambivalent abt. a lot of this going to be more speculative my apologies… i do suspect that there are some subtle idealist elements at work here. a major problem i suspect is going on here is that you are reducing the task of thinking largely to an abstraction as seen here >>15281 … the issue is that it is one thing to think, and it is another thing for the negativity of thought to be at one w a negativity in the material conditions themselves. if it is not, then it is merely some idle reflection. this goes back to what i was talking about in the last thread… positive freedom is always suppressed in capitalism. it never fully achieves full actuality because workers have little control over their work. this is the fundamental limitation of thinking-as-praxis. it is not to say thinking is useless, but it can be rather impotent. as you have brought up more ideas into this post, i see it appropriate to bring up brzozowski once again

>The man-as-labour metaphysics is not merely descriptive but prescriptive. You WILL work. You WILL be your labour

i think what needs to be said about man-as-labour is that it is not simply a blind fetishization of work. rather, labour is both the primordial site in which Being unfolds, and also the site in which man may be subjugated and reduced to a machine. without understanding the ontological import of labour, we fall into a contemplative liberalism, which only criticizes capitalism to the extent that it makes people work. brzozowski makes a distinction between labour which is largely free and irrational, and that which is mechanized and lifeless
<The α of labour is a leap beyond intellect because, as Bergson states, it is the function of intellect to pragmatically foresee (Bergson 1946, 34). Oblivious, the intellect seeks to formulate grounds for an activity that has no grounds beyond itself. Such grounds only appear after labour has ceased to be a delineating inner gesture, when it has become a mechanically repeatable activity in the space of homogeneous sociaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


I just farted






Stop bumping your shitty threads man

File: 1684760054389.jpg (92.97 KB, 720x720, EKqpiuMVUAIGPwE (2).jpg)


Apologies for any lapses in my grammar as English is not my first language.

I teach Marx's "Wage Labour and Capital" and "Value Price and Profit" in our native language, as part of a trade union movement, where we apprise the laborers with legal rights and theoretical foundations (as compared to "bread and butter unions").

Two questions are usually asked by the workers:
First, doesn't the "risk" taken by the capitalist (in not selling product or selling them below "profit margins") entitle them to a profit?

I'm aware that Marx has a manuscript on this, titled: "Bourgeois Conception of Profit as Reward for Risk" where he paints a dialogue between the worker and farmer. But I'm not so good at the English used here, and so I'd like to ask if my understanding is correct:

Am I correct in saying that because the worker also bears a risk when he sells his labor power to the capitalist (when Marx says: "The workman will he thrown out onto the street if the product is unsalable; and if it falls for long below the market-price, his wages will be brought down below the average and short time will be worked. It is he, therefore, that runs the greatest risk"), this also means that the laborer (seller of his labor power) should ask the capitalist to pay him more, just as the capitalist (as a seller of the finished good) asks the buyer in a market to pay him more?

I do give them an answer, but it's more along the lines of "risk alone is insufficient because there's also the risk of selling more, and in a huge company, profits are basically assured"). But of course, in a smaller enterprise (like a small restaurant chain), the capitalist still has a chance of losing everything and having to pay his creditors.

The workers usually follow this question up with: "what about our family's store?" Since any of their savings go to maintaining a small store (selling at profit). They usually employ someone from the community (or their children) to be paid way below minimum wage. They ask, if they want to pay their "employees." So in a way, they're also exploiting and thus (albeit in a micro and informal economy scale) not very different from their own employers?

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


It's been some time since I read these two works. The capitalist never incurs a risk bigger than becoming a proletarian.


Bring up limited liability.

File: 1684746756209.jfif (451.84 KB, 1483x1226, R.jfif)


I understand the value of pure theory since that's the only tool we have for shaping ideas which where not put into practice or not properly investigated. However, when the body of scientific literature is ever expanding and more and more data is being available, where is the political theory that is backed with evidence?
This is just my preliminary thoughts but Im just wondering if this is already being explored in leftists circles. As someone who read theory before but stopped, looking back on it too much was just pure speculation, "source: trust me bro" and "its common sense" type of stuff. If we really want to claim that we are scientific, shouldnt we apply empirical rigor to our body of work, shouldnt we abide by the hierarchy of evidence (be praised) as much as possible instead of being content with Freud-level of theory?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


Will do, thanks!


No probs.
You can also check Michael Hudson. Unfortunately I mostly know about the academic debates on Marxist economics via tik tok, of all places, so I can't really give you concrete authors or anything.


Cybernetic socialism involves real time economic responses to feedback which can crudely be considered similar to that idea, at least it could gather data this way as well and draw conclusions, also maybe experiment.


I always tought this was the best way to go about building communism. We only have speculations to guide us so why not experiment to find the best way to actually build a fair society? And its not like we have to experiment on everything, many case studies and reviews of multiple case studies have been done on urbanism and other things. All we gotta find out is how to run and organize the worker coops or whatever body we want to take care of the means of production.
On that note, anyone know any papers or books that try to investigate this kind of questions from looking at historical data of socialist countries?


Cool idea. Eventually we could experiment with models based on class dynamics, political and economic disparity within different societies. There are some people constructing models to experiment with planning their countries (e.g. Sweden) national industry cybernetically and that take into consideration for example carbon emissions and energy use and inputs and outputs iirc. The Swedish Marxist organization Tomäs Hardin is a part of that I cannot remember the name of off the top of my head has released a model on the internet that people can use to plug in their countries industry's inputs and outputs to construct a model for planning or something along those minds, forgive my ignorance, need to revisit, but anyways here is an example. I will embed a video of the lecture on paul cockshott's channel and here is Tomäs Hardin's channel, very underappreciated imo but like all good marxist nerds it is completely unpolished and full of old videos on random stuff: https://yewtu.be/channel/UC5fDgA_eHleDiTLC5qb5g8w

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / 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