/edu/ - Education

>>24304
Is that a youtuber?

>>24307
Tiktoker.

I might try a crack at it in comic form.

"There's no golden road to science" or whatever - Karl Marx

>>24296
>>24304
LOL

>>24234
>and "consumerist" being listed as "derogatory"
It is thobeit.

>>24236>>24238

1. The bourgeois interpretation of language is being listed as common usage regardless the fact. For example: the term "bourgeoisie" being defined firstly "the middle class" then the common defination "in a Marxist context" in Oxford Dictionary. Such distinction of "Marxist context" should not exist since the Marxist and liberal contexts are parallel instead of one is greater than another.

2. Bourgeois dictionaries are being used to legitimize the distatorship of the bourgeoisie. A classic example is oligarch vs entrepreneur in OED where the role of the former in state institutions is present with subjective interpretation that attempted to label them as being mostly related to former Societ Union. (not true) On the other hand, the latter is a bourgeois newspeak of the former and are being used daily to mitigate the political meaning of the former, as well as manipulation of the image of the subject to make them compatible with bourgeois morals (taking the risks) thus legitimizing their rule through moral superiority. Both mitigation and manipulation are propaganda. Such acts need be countered by dictionaries that point out the political meaning of the latter from a Marxist critique.

>>24241
>Such distinction of "Marxist context" should not exist since the Marxist and liberal contexts are parallel instead of one is greater than another.
Valid, I think it'd be nice to see that formatted like a table instead.
>A classic example is oligarch vs entrepreneur in OED where the role of the former in state institutions is present with subjective interpretation that attempted to label them as being mostly related to former Societ Union. (not true)
I knew Oxford was trashy but Holy Shit.

>>24234>>24241
Midori is not a real catgirl but some hybrid biomechanical creature like a raw organ plunged into a body of anime girl where the "mechanical" parts of her body is solely built for sexual attraction like genitalia which anime girls themselves are pretty similar since they're not people, they're the materilized sexual attractiveness that serves a capitalist agenda of treading the ability of the production of semen for production goods for the gain of the bourgeoisie.

You can created bio-enhanced semi-catgirl soldiers to fight in Ukraine, where they're faced the danger of being raped by a 3BM60 APFSDS in the ass and may need a proctectomy in the battlefield conditions where they're constantly bombed by Putin's artillery. It is not the ideal condition for a cat maid that is 15 years old since she may get splinter injuries over her face and will be made looked bad in a capitalist aesthetics and will not benefit the slave owner in a slave labour market of the catgirls

No, your summary is actually quite apt. Tl;dr Tudeh amass a sizeable following in Iranian industrial zones, fuck up by involving themselves too much in an oil nationalization campaign by a liberal PM and get aggressively repressed after the coup of that PM, slowly rebuild but are unable to recover completely from their 1953 setbacks, get banned by (capitalist) Islamists shortly after Iranian Revolution, which they were (wrongly) cautiously optimistic about. Good book attached

>>24161
>capitalist Islamists
As opposed to socialist Islamists?
The Ayatollah called Marxists homos who wanted to abolish the divine right to private property and free trade. While Islamo-socialists (MEK) who initially saw this and supported him later took part in the inter-imperialist war to seize power themselves. They're all liberals.

>>24158
I'd recommend Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi's books. He was Marxist activist during the revolution and a political prisoner under Khomeini's rule. He's very even handed, has a good insight into both leftists and Islamist activism in the 70s and 80s, he even shared a cell with Khamaeini once. He has a regular column in Counterpunch and his book Remembering Akbar is very good. I'd also recommend the book Critical Introduction to Khomeini edited by Adib-Moghaddam.

The problem with a lot of Iranian history is it was written by the losers, people who fled Iran during the 80s. There are all kinds of specious narratives about the Iranian revolution that diaspora Iranians (including academic historians) like to spread around. One common stereotype in Middle East history is a grand narrative that you have this traditional Islamic bad culture vs secular progressive forces trying to overcome that culture and the entire history of the region is just a culture war between these two factions and you'll see this pop up all the time. Tabrizi sees this as an example of secular fundamentalism and it appears in the books of many Iranian historians too.

>>24158
>the Revolution was hijacked by Islamists and turned Iran into a theocratic dystopia
This is a myth that was promoted by leftists who fled Iran in the 80s. Pretty much everyone in Iran in the 70s and in 1979 was 1. Pro-Khomeini 2. Believed in the importance of Islam or that Islam should have some role in government etc. What that role should be and what role Khomeini should play was where people disagreed. Even the avowedly atheist leftists in Iran had to bend to the overwhelming Islamic sentiment. They often had an attitude of "there is no God but unlike Christianity Islam is a revolutionary religion" etc. and then a good chunk of leftists were devout Muslims or at least sympathetic to Qutb and Shariati. A good chunk of Islamists also had leftist sympathies, especially Ayatollahs Taleghani and Behishti, Ali Shariati etc. there was a whole Islamic left that's been suppressed in Iran since the 80s. Mir Hossein Mousavi and the Green Movement fall into this Islamic left socialist camp.

A good amount of people assume that Islamists and leftists were at each others throats when thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>24204
Marxallah, we found a liberal I was just speaking of your kin.

Okay, found Wang Huning's "America Against America" which is very interesting so far.

It's hard to dismiss freud when your enemies are trying to make their breeding fetishes enforced by the state.

>>13047
>and I don't understand why.
They are stuck in 19th century pseudo-science.

marx opens capital vol. 1, chapter 1, section 4 ("the fetishism of commodities"), with these words:
<"A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."
the "fetishism" of commodities has its dialectical dynamics. the "economic cell-form" comes to represent the entire body of social labour - embodying the universal essence in a particular way. the social relation of men is also reversed into the objectifying intercourse of exchange, where value itself, becomes the subject.

we ought to say something similar about the erotic fetish, which equally abounds in
metaphysical and theological mystery (as transsexualism may communicate). the ass and foot fetish for example, entail what practitioners call the "worship" of the object; whereby the essence of the person is transposed into the thing, and so is attempted to be consumed, literally or figuratively (this transposition of essence was also present in druid rituals for mistletoe). oral sex has this aspect, where one "eats" the other person, like a catholic eats Christ in the eucharist. the sanctified fetish object is a medium for the transcendent (sublime), which cannot otherwise be immediately expressed. this is why a fetish is so erotic; because it projects what is typically repressed.

marx, following from feuerbach, sees that man then worships himself through the form of commodities, obscuring himself. in the fetish, a person is objectified, yet what one loves in the object is simply the inexpressible love he feels for the other. this is why the misanthrope will often project his love onto animals, as a reservoir for an impotent humanism; the same way a childless woman will raise pets like children. the fetish compensates for what is lost from immediacy, in the same way that all desire, is a desire for what we can never truly possess.

we might say that marx studied political economy, while freud studied libidinal economy. in each of their conceptions, there is closure and expansion. to marx, there is commodity circulation (C-M-C) and capital circulation (M-C-M'), while to freud, there is the pleasure principle and the death drive. lets see how they intersect.

where value is spent for marx, we may say that libido is spent for freud. the economy revolves around these social substances. value to marx in the first place, is social labour transformed into commodities, while to freud, libido is the sex drive transformed into symbols of the psyche. in each conception, there is an essence and appearance - given in the fetish objects.

according from each, there is production and exchange. in exchange (C-M-C), there is a fixed amount of substance which terminates by expenditure. to marx, value embodied by the commodity is used up in consumption, while to freud, libido is expended in the erotic (aristotle's poetic theory of "catharsis" applies, such as the orgasm being the "climax"). this pursuit of expending libido is called "the pleasure principle". pleasure to freud is about the release of tension, and so pleasure must be produced by this original condition.

in production (M-C-M'), we see how in capitalism, a commodity's value is constituted by surplus-value. this is precisely mirrored by freud in his theory of the death drive, where a surplus pleasure is achieved by a compulsion of repetition. this forms the drive to death, which is simultaneously a will to life. an example is addiction, where we seem to be addicted to harmful things, showing us how pleasure (release) primarily depends upon death drive (tension). the production of tension then acts as surplus pleasure. this may also explain why the working class never revolt; because they enjoy their suffering (as per all martyrdoms), paired with the repetition-compulsion of labour. the workers are addicted to work! is paul lafargue's revolutionary laziness a potential solution?

>>24217
>We could name more.
Combat Liberalism DLC when?
What are some other types of liberalism to combat?

its discovered and is just one manifestation of the higher order or Absolute

>>22934
Discovered but indelibly partial due to the interfacing of human limitations, so both 'real'/a fragment of the absolute, symptomatically, and also insufficient/a construct of the human mind in correspondence to its perceptible immediacy.
In other words, it is partially discovered and partially invented.

>>24107
Wine moms, depending on how you define/identify them, are perhaps some of the best suited (some of them) to turning left. A lot of them just buy into whatever NPR or MSNBC tell them sure, but so many feel disappointed and dejected every time the Democrats fail. I know because I literally see it. The American voter, buy being so uneducated, have such insane politics it would drive you mad. I've met Hillary Clinton Stans who also love Luigi Mangione, or Pussy hat wearing protesters who want to see tribunals for ICE. It's crazy. You can't pick and choose your population in the country, you just have to work with who you have.

>>24121
>Wine moms, depending on how you define/identify them, are perhaps some of the best suited (some of them) to turning left.
Just start asking them about Palestine and they'll start talking about how the Free Palestine movement is a Russian conspiracy against the Democrats. Ask them how they feel about homeless people and they'll say they should be sent "somewhere" unspecified and that it's all mental illness and drug addiction that has absolutely nothing to do with obscenely high rent. Given the Hitler particles you can see just oozing from the "Wine Mom" types when you bring up homelessness, I honestly wonder what "somewhere" they have in mind. They don't want socialism, they want another Obama and they'll get that in 3 years, likely in the form of Cory Booker.

You start with a clear and concise idea of communism, based on Marx's writings, and establish a political program of tactics meant to bring about that idea. Then you ask people if they agree with your program and if they do, they can join your movement.

If you don't give a shit about the end goal you're gonna have a bad time. The average alienated worker's ideas are a grab bag of incoherence, even if they are 'radicalized' they are not gonna swing your way unless you dose them with logic. Maybe you could have some success with single-issue campaigns but those never lead to anything greater and can easily be copied or co-opted by the reactionary right.

>>24098
No offense but OPs like these are why people don't like leftism.

>>24106
>Have you seen the tendencies of the rural working class? Or like, everyone in America.
Here's something you don't hear because the online Left is more likely to have read Sakai than Marx: The average Russian worker in 1917 was about as racist as the average White worker in America at that time. What were pogroms but the equivalent of lynching in America? Yet, they created socialism, not fascism. That's because there was a revolutionary party with a revolutionary theory; instead what we have are a bunch of petit-bougeois podcasters and their fans whose entire slogan to workers is "Live with less" instead of "Peace, Land, Bread". This New "Left" notion that petit-bougeois activists and intellectuals are going to save the world should die already.

Why is labor allowed to be hated but not education?

Amazing how people will readily question the need for labor discipline but will get offended over questioning school discipline

Labor disciplines itself when set to some task. If you don't do the job assigned to you, if you don't pull your weight, you won't work at some place. The other workers do not want you there.

All of this was premised on the idea that workers know how to work and didn't need to be told. That is the most basic rule. The workers in charge means exactly that; that there is a body among the workers that handles disciplinary action.

The moment you introduce some technocratic management from outside, where the incentives are not the workers' own, you've already detracted from the task of labor itself. This is how you shit up a workplace, create intrigues, and get the slaves to attack each other. It's always for that purpose. It is premised on the belief that workers are evil and stupid and will just destroy everything if they're not managed by a boss that is detached from labor and sees labor as a purely desultory and miserable act.

Sadly, the mangers were proven true, and this happened mostly because the workers really were evil, because they were taught that evil is stronger than any goodness in the world. If workers do not want society, then what exactly are they doing among society? The genuine aim of the laboring classes is to be free of overbearing management, and they will work towards that aim. Once established, they turned viciously against other workers and the lowest class, having established security for themselves and their buddies. There is no law of labor itself or "law of nature" that required this to happen. That is how history for humans turned out, for reasons humans understood well but that "the theory" insisted wasn't happening as it was happening.

If however the question assumes that workers do this purely out of incompetence rather than malice, that is a faulty assumption. Anyone who works learns by heart what is necessary for whatever work task they are set to. If they do not know this, they will have to learn, or they will surely sink. The malice of labor against other laborers was already established in humanity since time immemorial. What management desired was to intensify that malice and glorify it, naturalize it, and essentialize it. If that was accomplished, then any impulse of the workers to band together out of necessity would be permanently negated—and so it was done, and the workers could only watch as they were set against each other by intrigues and schemes, and then were told it was illegal Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

There's more to discipline than punishing misbehavior. It's more a question of how to effectively motivate workers to work more.

>>12574
>Of course more remuneration for working longer hours and odd hours is something to be kept. And it makes sense to have some element in the salary that is performance-based as long as that performance can be unambiguously measured. Like carrying sacks… I have to admit I don't think most jobs are unambiguous like that. Some bonus might be distributed by co-workers voting on who should get it.
You are a social democrat

>>24181
The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor.