[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/edu/ - Education

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

| Catalog | Home

File: 1608527918833.jpg (117.32 KB, 776x749, 1574834893361.jpg)

 No.1[Reply]

Is this man the only good youtube historian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBUGQkpk3RE
26 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.2065

>>1
I like how in his latest video he was clearly butthurt about clever political maneuvering by Tito at the expense of the british LMAO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D87vVWjtp_U
>>

 No.2076

>>1611
sometimes right-wing idiots can still make good content. See TiK vidoes before he came out as a libertardian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc-rFzC63hU
>>

 No.2483

>>1
He's fun to listen to but a British nationalist so I don't take him seriously on anything related to the UK.
>>

 No.2484

>>2076
"Denying Hitler was a socialist means denying the holocaust happened"
>>

 No.2491

>>306
If you are into medieval weapons and martial arts scholagladiatoria blows them all out of the water and is not a retarded right winger:
https://www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria


File: 1608528184141.jpg (59.06 KB, 457x640, 313e9201c1d65497c1fe54ac55….jpg)

 No.2446[Reply]

Why some marxist use historical determinism as a pejorative and how can someone be marxist and reject determinism?
>>

 No.2447

>>2446
Marxists acknowledge that contradictions are inherent to all things in themselves across all times. There is no such thing as an absolute harmony which can be disturbed or reach. Hence dialectics are anti-determinist at a fundamental zero-level.
>>

 No.2480

Historical determinism is often used to mean the belief that history is outside the control of humanity and instead happens to them like the weather.

Meanwhile Marx claimed that humans are capable of consciously changing their material conditions (by "revolutionary activity").


File: 1608527998653.jpg (1.33 MB, 1820x4348, V3j_b1VqNW0XCtMToOg5Tuc5jd….jpg)

 No.630[Reply]

And which should I skip?
70 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.2440

Pynchon is very fun to read
>>

 No.2460

>>630
My personal favorite is 77
>>

 No.2461

>>2460
It’s not a book about ideology per se, however it’s an incredible book. It’s a story about childhood’s end, fear, anger, nostalgia, with some midlife crisis stuff thrown in. It’s great
>>

 No.2478

File: 1608528187979.jpeg (4.25 KB, 229x220, descarga (71).jpeg)

>>649
>lolita
>my gf's favorite book
>>

 No.2479

>>2478
lol
She just thinks Nabakov was the century's finest prose stylist.


File: 1608528180821.jpg (59.43 KB, 800x450, maxresdefault.jpg)

 No.2404[Reply]

The late 2010's and early 2020's upheavals were predicted 10 years ago by a relatively simple model that accounts for elite infighting, income inequality, number of 18-29 y.o. people, etc. The same analysis was retroactively applied to many civil wars and revolutions throughout history and the results were pretty consistent: wars, revolutions and upheavals follow pretty deterministic patterns. The thing that's impossible to predict, is the trigger, the casus belli. In-depth paper in [1], 2020 prediction in [2].

On the other hand the rate of profit is falling (empirically proven in [3]), which makes the contradictions accelerate: median living conditions become increasingly unbearable, inequality between the working population and the elite skyrockets, etc. (coronavirus and climate change are just accelerating even further the process). The question is not if, but when, will capitalism collapse. Two options at that point: regression, the elite fights back and wins (fascism, neo-feudalism, apocalyptic-tier world wars, pick your poison) or progression, the working class fights back and wins (socialism, which means the long term construction of post-scarcity society i.e. communism).

[1]: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6qp8x28p
[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/463608a
>Quantitative historical analysis reveals that complex human societies are affected by recurrent — and predictable — waves of political instability (P. Turchin and S. A. Nefedov Secular Cycles Princeton Univ. Press; 2009). In the United States, we have stagnating or declining real wages, a growing gap between rich and poor, overproduction of young graduates with advanced degrees, and exploding public debt. These seemingly disparate social indicators are actually related to each other dynamically. They all experienced turning points during the 1970s. Historically, such developments have served as leading indicators of looming political instability
>Very long 'secular cycles' interact with shorter-term processes. In the United States, 50-year instability spikes occurred around 1870, 1920 and 1970, so another could be due around 2020. We are also entering a dip in the so-called Kondratiev wave, which traces 40-60-year economic-growth cycles. ThPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
24 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.2429

>>2427
Well put comrade, have you read Hinterland, by Phil Neel?
>>

 No.2430

>>2428
>I also am unclear why you find urban environments to be hostile. I agree with your opinion but my reasons are more mundane: vehicle traffic, noise pollution, actual pollution, lack of space for gatherings.

None of these are inherent to the city-form. An advanced socialist city of the future could avoid or minimize these issues. I do not share the contempt for cities, but I admit that there is a large untapped potential to them. We could create clean, green, efficient, humane and beautiful cities - capitalism stands in the way.
>>

 No.2431

>>2430
>None of these are inherent to the city-form
Not that anon, but the entire history of cities is that of people being forced into them out of brute desperation in search of opportunities for sustenance, falling to ruin both as individuals and generationally all their time there, and fleeing as far from the city center as they can manage the moment they claw together enough resources to afford it.

It's pretty obvious that people just really, really hate living in cities.
>>

 No.2432

>>2426
Honestly, I'm against trying to predict the future, but I think it's hard not to let some of the "kill me now" nihilistic millennial humor creep into my thought process. Not least because I've been guilty of perpetuating that nonsense myself.
>>

 No.2469

>>2431
>It's pretty obvious that people just really, really hate living in cities
I disagree. People hate living in shitty cities.


File: 1608528179686.jpg (40.08 KB, 635x357, 9abca5b38aa4f516e4ce65ee21….jpg)

 No.2390[Reply]

Were his works a coping mechanism because dialectics failed?
>>

 No.2392

No because it was based on Adorno’s misunderstanding of dialectics in the first place. If you actually pay attention to Hegel you’ll see that Dialectics and Negative Dialectics are pretty much the same.
>>

 No.2433

>>2392
You're saying the only difference is that Adorno evaluates it negatively? There seems to be more to it from what I heard.
>>

 No.2434

>>2433
From what I’ve read, Adorno tries to argue against the idea that, in substation, contradictions are abstracted rather than sustained, but it’s based on his own misinterpretation of how Hegel describes sublation rather than Hegel’s failure to understand it.
>>

 No.2435

>>2434
>substation
*sublation


 No.2397[Reply]

[b]NICARAGUA[/b]
[b]COSTA RICA[/b]
[b]PANAMA[/b]
[b]HONDURAS[/b]
[b]EL SALVADOR[/b]
Frankly I wanted more info and knowladge about these part of the world.
>>

 No.2398

You want something cringe and fucking.
See this documentary about the chief defender of child molestors visiting Nicaragua
https://invidio.us/watch?v=RAFSwv_5Uc8


File: 1608528166402.png (1.95 MB, 1351x1024, 22e6152e341ea8aa1f946d7400….png)

 No.2223[Reply]

is there a literary historian that gives a structuralist reason as to why the Soviet Union fell without blaming "revisionism" or "totalitarianism"?
>>

 No.2283

I guess Cockshott in "How the World Works". I described this take before quite a few times on /leftypol/ over the last month, so I am a bit tired of re-writing it here. The gist is this:
>Falling rate of growth kicks in once the economy matures and all the labor available is mobilized from rural jobs into industrial ones
>This causes a stagnation in economic growth
>This causes real wage growth to slow down to a crawl
>This pisses of the middle class, which is becoming envious of their western counterparts that have yet to experience the start of the death of the capitalist middle class
>This, over the course of Brezhnev's premiership, ferments a political crisis of sorts
>Different factions arise to solve the problem, mainly neo-Stalinist hardliners, Centrists and Reformists.
>Statistical chance lands the power in the hand of reformers in 1985
>Their policies, while having some good points, accidentally also wreck the command economy, only deepening the crisis, while the decision to make the country more "democratic" lets reactionaries like Yeltsin, as well as nationalists, get more influence
>This sets of the first few secession, causing more instability, which reactionary forces, specifically having influence in the army, use to seize power
>USSR is undemocratically dissolved
>>

 No.2342

>>2283
In this scenario what should have been done to solve the crisis? Was stagnation inevitable and just apart of socialism or was the solution just computerization like Cockshott proposes?
>>

 No.2362

>>2223
repost from my posts at /his/

The problem of socialist economy was not output distribution, but input allocation.
During 1930s, while the victory in economic front was significant, there was a sign of problem. With the appearance of new production sectors (due to completion of industrialisation), came the problem of fighting for input (funding and manpower).
For example, the fight between Stalin and Trotsky was the precursor of that kind. Behind the ideological struggle was actually an economic problem. Trotsky wanted to turn USSR into an full military-industrialised country (similar to Nazi) in order to carry out world revolution (expansionist), while Stalin wanted to focus on building a robust autarkic economy that could survive the onslaught of enemies (isolationist). But why didn't they combine both approaches, wouldn't it be better than adopting only one approach? The answer was because of limited resources. If we thought of Stalin faction and Trotsky faction as two socialist enterprises, then it's actual a fight for funding.
Another example was the fight between Lysenko school and Western genetics school in biology. Actually, nothing prevented both directions of research to cooperate with each other, but why they didn't? Because in a condition of limited of resources and manpower, if the Lysenko school gained a new researcher, it meant the genetics school lost a researcher (researchers as rare resources). The winning of one faction meant the losing of another one, in the condition of limited resources. As Lenin had said, we need to see the real economic struggle behind every ideological struggle, without doing so, history is still a picture shroud in mysteries.

In the late 1950s, the problem was even more grave. With the advent of many new important economic sectors (nuclear, plasma, advanced agriculture, computing, rocket, space, etc.) the fighting for funding and input came to new level. Every sectors were important, but who would receive the most funding? After the disastrous failure of Khrushchev in his agriculture experiment, everyone was aware painfully that much resources thrown into a project didn't automatically mean success. The question of how to allocate resources raged fiercely.
Eventually, the Kosygin's reform returned a mechanism of capitalism, that is, funding would be allocated accordingly to the PROFIT inPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1608528163324.jpg (14.65 KB, 250x396, Althusser[1].jpg)

 No.2192[Reply]

why do leftists generally dislike Althusser?
26 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.2354

>>2341
he's unironically a great mathematician and programmer. I just find it annoying when people shill him on anything philosophy related.
>>

 No.2355

>>2328

Can a mod or someone reach out to him and have him do an AMA here on a pinned thread? That would be cool
>>

 No.2358

>>2351
Zizek is a fucking joke and the fact that you cite him favorably in a thread like this speaks volumes.
>>

 No.2365

>>2358
Oh really? Compared to a non-theorist blogger? Zizek has serious work other than cultural takes.
>>

 No.2366

>>2365
You're a silly person and I'm ending this here.


File: 1608528145110.jpg (41.21 KB, 450x363, Capitalism1.jpg)

 No.2035[Reply]

In Section VI of Wages Price and Profit, Marx explains that prices approximate the true value of a commodity, but only over time as supply and demand average out. Having established this, he goes on to argue against the fallacy that profit is obtained by selling commodities above their value:

>If then, speaking broadly, and embracing somewhat longer periods, all descriptions of commodities sell at their respective values, it is nonsense to suppose that profit, not in individual cases, but that the constant and usual profits of different trades spring from surcharging the prices of commodities, or selling them at a price over and above their value. The absurdity of this notion becomes evident if it is generalized. What a man would constantly win as a seller he would as constantly lose as a purchaser. It would not do to say that there are men who are buyers without being sellers, or consumers without being producers. What these people pay to the producers, they must first get from them for nothing. If a man first takes your money and afterwards returns that money in buying your commodities, you will never enrich yourselves by selling your commodities too dear to that same man. This sort of transaction might diminish a loss, but would never help in realizing a profit.


Marx's argument against a fallacy rampant in the present day seems like it would be incredibly useful to learn, I cannot for the life of me parse what he is talking about. Thus, instead of ignoring this aside I come to /edu/'s help in making sense of it. To break it down:

&ltWhat a man would constantly win as a seller he would as constantly lose as a purchaser.
If every transaction in capitalism can be understood abstractly as buyers and sellers entering a marketplace - representing supply and demand by changes in stalls, shoppers, and salesmen, for instance - then each transaction with an arbitrary percentage of profit x applied would even out. This is what I assumed this sentence to mean at first. But even if this were the case, could each successive capitalist in the line from raw material to finished product not add a surplus onto the successively increasing true value of the increasingly complex commodity? Marx might say that the competition between capitalists (ignoring supply and demand, which self-cancel) would force this arbitrary "profit" to increasingly diminish to almost nothing if it were to ever exisPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>

 No.2357

you faggots really don't know the answer to this? this is considered one of the easiest marxist works and you don't get it? back to /leftypol/ then.
>>

 No.2359

>>2357
The reason no-one answered is precisely because its so easy, idiot.
>>

 No.2361

>>2357
It's a dead board man;
I don't know what you were expecting


 No.1821[Reply]

>Those workers (proletarians) in the developed countries who benefit from the superprofits extracted from the impoverished workers of developing countries form an "aristocracy of labor". The phrase was popularized by Karl Kautsky in 1901
I'm noticing this really is a recurring theme with Lenin, but I'll leave this for another thread…
>and theorized by Vladimir Lenin in his treatise on Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. [b]According to Lenin, companies in the developed world exploit workers in the developing world where wages are much lower. The increased profits enable these companies to pay higher wages to their employees "at home" (that is, in the developed world), thus creating a working class satisfied with their standard of living and not inclined to proletarian revolution. It is a form of exporting poverty, creating an "exclave" of lower social class. Lenin contended that imperialism had prevented increasing class polarization in the developed world and argued that a workers' revolution could only begin in one of the developing countries, such as Imperial Russia.[/b]

By contrast, the definition within revolutionary syndicalism is that trade union bureaucracy, 'yellow unions', or social democratic unions were labelled 'labor aristocracy', (the IWW for example instead being a revolutionary industrial union, created within the orthodox Marxist theories of De Leonism).
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.1823

>>1822
This thread addresses Leninism primarily cunt.
>>

 No.1838

bump
>>

 No.2276

What is to be done as class-conscious proletarians of the developed countries if Revolution can only arise from developing nations, and those populations do not desire our adventurist migration there?
>>

 No.2280

>>2276
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neI-ol2AowM
>How to Think Like a Vietnamese Communist: An Intro to Dialectical Materialism!
>>

 No.2360

>>1821
>The increased profits enable these companies to pay higher wages to their employees "at home" (that is, in the developed world)

has anybody verified this using data if possible? doesn't this imply that as places like China become more 'developed' and wages rise, wages will balance out between the developed/developing world and perhaps agitate the proletariat in developed countries to revolution?


Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]
[ 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