[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

| Catalog | Home
|

 No.4251[Reply]

I haven't read much but I'm confused as to why Marx and others conceived of the proletariat as the class that would overthrow capitalism. If we look at history through a materialist lense it seems to me that it's only been a third propertied class overthrows the current system of production, not the people without property. For example, it wasn't slaves that overthrew slavery, it was landlords. It wasn't serfs that overthrew feudalism, it was the bourgeoisie. Every revolution calling itself socialist that actually took state power was led by petit-bourgeois intellectuals like Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Fidel Castro and manned mostly not by workers, but by peasants in a semi-colonial semi-feudal relationship to the means of production. Most proletarian movements in advanced capitalist societies have been reformist and class collaborationist. How, after all of this evidence, can we say that the proletariat is the revolutionary class? How can you say the workers have nothing to lose but their chains when they need capitalism to keep going so they can have running water, electricity, and the spectacle to keep them comfortable?
17 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4272

in both examples provided, classes were sediment and predetermined. this allows for middle classes that can flourish and help the workers because they had a common enemy. In capitalism, however, the middle classes are dissolving into either the proletarian or the bourgeoisie. This class organization means that the proletarian will become the ONLY class with revolutionary potential because, eventually, they will be the only non possessing class. for now though, there is some weak solidarity with some petit bourgeoisie so we should take advantage of that as much as we can at least. hope this helped comrade ! :)

 No.4273

>>4272
>they will be the only non possessing class
a non possessing class has never been able to overthrow a class system. Again, who overthrew slavery? It wasn't the slaves. Assuming a non possessing class will overthrow our current class system is a break from all historical trends.

 No.4274

well i am not sure how things will play out, but my point was that the proletarian may have to break that cycle out of necessity. however i dont think we should ignore our petite comrades that, with out the influence of the proletariat, would surley not revolt

 No.4275

>>4274
>but my point was that the proletarian may have to break that cycle out of necessity
just because something is necessary doesn't meant it will happen, remember Marx is not a determinist, he noted that not just proletarian revolution is possible, but that the "common ruin of the contending classes" is just as much a possibility, and if the climate alarmists are correct, this is the where we already are and basically the course change would come too late to matter.

 No.4286

>>4251
The capitalist mode of production is increasingly powerless. In the pursuit of profit, it is stuck in maintaining the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure maintenance is an unprofitable or low-profitable business. But without infrastructure, society cannot function. Only the proletariat, who do not work for profit, can lead the whole society from the inevitable collapse caused by capitalism.



 No.4227[Reply]

I've heard the May '68 failure characterized as being due to a conflict between the PCF and the students themselves. I haven't finished reading PDF related (below) but so far it seems to support this, being from the perspective of the students and, as you would expect, laying the blame on the PCF as well as heaping them with epithets (comparing them to liberals, for example). So my questions here are:

&lt1. Is this book known to anyone? If not, does it look like a decent primary source from the students' point of view?
&lt2. Does anyone have anything more sympathetic to the PCF that could balance it out? Or even something more neutral to both sides?

Thx anons

 No.4236

The PCF and CGT told the wildcat strikers to go back to work because they thought they would win the election, they sabotaged the whole thing for their own bourgeois political gain only to be BTFOd by Gualle in the actual elections. You can't balance out betrayal.

 No.4277

OP here, sorry that I never posted the file. I forgot TOR users can't post files. The book is Worker-Student Action Committees by Gregoire and Perlman, probably can be found on Google.

>>4236
I didn't clarify that I wasn't implying the PCF couldn't be in the wrong. Do you have a good book on it? Do you think the book I mentioned is good? It's short af so I'll probably just read it anyway.



 No.4197[Reply]

I'm a history major in Burgerstan, I'm hoping to really focus in on labor history and eventually get some kind of law degree so I can help Unions or work for OSHA or some shit. I thought it might be a good idea to start reading up on one of the more violent episodes of American Capitalism. Can anybody recommend some good accounts or Historians that cover the Coalfield Wars?

 No.4209

I know a few books but I gotta wait until I can go back to the library to find the titles.

 No.4288

Robert Ovetz's When Workers Shot Back: Class Conflict from 1877 to 1921 would probably be a good starting point. 606 pages; it has a section on the West Virginia coal wars.

 No.4290

Nigga if you are a history major you should be recommending books to us



 No.4166[Reply]

Hey /e/Im a brainlet prole that recently got a scholarships to university, and Im wondering if there are any resources that you could recommend to improve general academic skills with an emphasis on essay writing. I've done a general scan for books and courses on libgen and TPB. But I wanted to get some advise with a left perspective. When I say brainlet I mean dyslexic and when I say prole I mean any unskilled job I can land (bar work, kitchen work, construction, etc.) My degree is in healthcare and administration.
19 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4193


 No.4194


 No.4195

>>4194
done, hope it helps comrade

 No.4223

>>4194
>>4193
>>4192
>>4191
>>5569
Niceu dess ne.
Thank you anonysan

 No.4250

File: 1608528377875.jpg (139.43 KB, 750x259, 1604926583823.jpg)

I like this one.



File: 1608528369483.jpeg (86.59 KB, 1949x1096, 1.jpeg)

 No.4153[Reply]

If ML anti-revisionism came to encompass a defense of orthodox Marxism, Bolshevism/Leninism and Stalinism, then:
1. what features did the ML revisionism of Khrushchev and his USSR followers entail that broke with this
2. which policies differentiated Dengist revisionism from the USSR revisionism, enough for them to not be able to get along by Brezhnev-Deng times?
3. Does Bukharin'ism' play any particular role in how these right-wing deviations differed?

 No.4181

post this on leftypol maybe someone will answer fuck the mods



File: 1608528368411.jpg (62.68 KB, 465x640, voroshilovbudyonny.jpg)

 No.4140[Reply]

Anyone have any recommended books on the Russian Civil War? Preferably from a military focus and perspective from the Soviet side.

 No.4141

Bumping this as I'd like to know too.

 No.4142

I had some but I've forgotten the names and i' can't be arsed to look through my bookshelves.

 No.4143

>>4142
If I spot any I'll let you know though… they're mostly in Russian however



File: 1608528366727.jpg (116.64 KB, 555x414, Theodore_Kaczynski.jpg)

 No.4123[Reply]

Explain, in your opinion, from a Marxist standpoint, which held the more important change to humanity's social organization, technology, and relationship to Nature; was it the Agricultural Revolution with the start of animal husbandry, settlements, and war? Was it the Urban Revolution with the start of social classes, states, philosophical inquiry, and writing? Or was it the Industrial Revolution with the start of modern warfare, modern agricultural, globalization, modern science, and the population boom?

 No.4125

>>4123
within marxism itself there is a distinct early modern agricultural revolution which drove the birth of capitalism in the 16th and 17th centuries by what became the earliest capitalists, farmers. the technological early modern agricultural revolution led to the creation of the wage laborer in the 18th century and these are the laborers that went on to be the primary commodity in the industrial revolution.

from a marxist standpoint, i think its clear that the industrial revolution led to the single most increase productive ability in humanity, and therefore has the single most impact (good and bad) on our history and society

 No.4128

>>4125
Hmmm, I guess honestly this makes sense. It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that mankind even had a collective expectation of constant technological and social progress, before humans assumed all was static, they didn't even realize that there was a time before classes and even agriculture. It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that mankind believed that an existence away from their world was not only POSSIBLE but even INEVITABLE



 No.4121[Reply]

Explain what Marx meant by "abstract labour". Me too unga bunga to understand.
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4127

>>4126
This is wrong.
> Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.
This is from Capital, first chapter.

 No.4130

>>4127
"If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract."

Abstract labor exists as an abstraction of concrete labor, labor towards creating value from a commodity. Concrete labor is the labor that creates use-value from a commodity, it creates a commodity's physical properties. Abstract value, however, is ABSTRACTED from concrete labor, it is the labor of the entire productive labor of a human society as a whole rather than labor for the purpose of creating value out of a commodity. We can use abstraction of the concrete labor used to create two commodities (Marx uses corn and iron) to be able to compare the use-value and exchange value of a commodity. Concrete labor is socially necessary labor, it is fundamentally required to create value in a commodity, whereas abstract labor contains a multitude of labor that may not directly correlate with the value of a commodity, because it contains the entirety of labor. Concrete labor creates use-value, value on the basis of the expenditure of labor and the physical properties of a commodity, whereas abstract labor creates through the totality of labor the exchange value of a commodity, through comparing the concrete labor put into any commodities, and the labor required to create them, compared with the total abstract labor.

 No.4131

>>4130
Abstract labor is how society derives how it should exchange two products based on their use-value, their exchange value. Concrete labor is the actual labor used to create use-value.

 No.4133

To give a concrete (har har) example, think of a car. A car is a commodity produced to make a profit. When Toyota directs its workers to make a car, they're utilizing a tremendous array of different kinds of labor - some of which is directly employed by them, like the assembly line workers and the engineers, and some of which is indirect, such as the labor required to extract minerals from the earth or to create specialized parts that Toyota order from other firms rather than makes itself.

We can think of this mass of labor as a certain quantity - as a homogenous quantity once we *abstract* away from the particular kinds of acts people do - and if a firm finds a way of making a similar product with less of this amount, they can produce it more cheaply in real terms and undercut Toyota. So this is why abstract labor regulates prices under markets - we can, and firms do, compare different amounts of qualitatively different employed labor to guide decisions about what gets produced and what prices they exchange at.

Now consider a hobbyist who repairs their own car for convenience or to mod it for fun. When they spend time understanding the how the car works, attaching and removing components, diagnosing a problem with it, and so on, they're performing various kinds of concrete labor that are, as concrete labor, similar to what employed workers in the Toyota supply chain are doing.

But although all abstract labor is also various kinds of concrete labor, not all concrete labor is abstract labor. The hobbyist's creating mods for himself or his friends is not regulated by the market in the same way.

 No.4139

Marx distinguishes between concrete labor that produces use values and abstract labor that produces value.

Concrete labor is the labor that is actually performed. The real problem in Marxist value theory is to determine how actual concrete labor—real world human labor—is converted through the process of exchange of the products of that labor into abstract human labor.

One person can produce far more of a commodity of a given quality in a given amount of time than another person. People produce commodities with different use values involving different types of labor. No two people labor in exactly the same way or with the same productivity. Nor do they labor with the same productivity at all times. Some people work better in the morning than they do in the afternoon.

Does a person who takes more time than average to produce a given commodity of a given quality produce more value than a person who can produce the commodity in the average amount of time?

The case of a lazy shoemaker is often given to illustrate this point. Suppose in a given epoch under average conditions of production a shoemaker of average skill and industriousness can make one pair of shoes per hour. Assuming the workday is eight hours, the average shoemaker can make eight pairs of shoes per day.

But our lazy shoemaker makes only one pair of shoes every two hours, or only four shoes in an eight-hour workday. Does a pair of shoes of a given quality that takes two hours to produce by our lazy shoemaker represent twice the value of a pair of shoes made by an average shoemaker?

No, what Marx called the individual value of a pair of shoes made by the lazy shoemaker represents two hours of labor, but its social value is still only one hour of labor. In the marketplace, our shoemaker can’t sell the pair of shoes for twice the price simply because he or she is lazy. Therefore, over an eight-hour workday our lazy shoemaker is wasting four hours out of every eight hours worked. Of every 40 hours of concrete labor our lazy shoemaker performs, 20 hours consists of socially unnecessary labor.

Things would be no different if instead of a lazy shoemaker we had a lazy gold miner who produces the commodity whose use value is to serve as the money commodity. Suppose an average gold miner working under the average conditions of production of a given epoch can produce two ounces of gold in a 40-hour workweek. If a lazy gold miner produces one ouncPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



File: 1608528365850.jpg (72.44 KB, 640x479, youngpolpot.jpg)

 No.4113[Reply]

I've been working for a manifesto all these days I've been trying to idealize the Khmer rouge ideology which was hardly based on radical nationalism and Maoism and apparently I call my ideology national Maoism.
Therefore I'm searching for the mao Zedong national liberation or KR politics later I would publish my book on amazon kindle.
Still, there is a reel version of my book but sadly I wont reveal it only few had the chance

 No.4115

>Pol Pot
>thought

 No.4134


 No.4680

>>4113
Soo how it's going?

 No.4681

>>4113
>book about Pol Pot though
>will publish it on Kindle

Hahaha you absolute fucking Schizo. You have my blessings



File: 1608528334473.jpg (3.3 KB, 71x90, adorno-theodor.jpg)

 No.3769[Reply]

Frankfurt School Thread.
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4089


 No.4090

>>4089
Is that Yoko Onna?

 No.4091


 No.4116

Based Frankfurt Schoolians:
>Horkheimer
>Adorno
>Habermas
>Walter Benjamin
>Erich Fromm
>Herbert Marcuse
>Ernst Bloch
did I forget someone?

 No.4119

>>4116
>Marcuse
"Repressive tolerance" was kinda cringe, tbh



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 ]
[ 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