[ 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

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

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

| Catalog | Home


I don't know much about Imperialism. Can someone summarise the key differences between the Luxemburgian theory of Imperialism and the ML theory of Imperialism?
Where do they differ and which of them is, in your mind, more accurate?
I have unfortunately not the time to read "Die Akkumulation des Kapitals." or "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" as I have to do a lot of reading for uni at the time and my tbr list is already way too long.
It´s a topic I'm really interested in and I would appreciate it if you could help me out here.
Maybe you know a shorter, more accessible introductional book on imperialism.


>industrial capital merges together with bank capital, creates financial capital
>creating of trusts, monopolies, bourgeois unions, and so on
>trusts destroy and choke the competition, capital centralizes even further
>centralization means monopoly over natural resources
>regional goes national, national goes international
>biggest firms own the capital in other countries, exploits further their resources and labor force
>world is now partitioned between the most developed capitalist states. further repartitions will cause wars

Correct me if I missed something, comrades.


You missed the part about the banking hegemony where countries are invaded when they stop using the dominant financial transaction system. You know like in Libya the first thing the counter revolutionaries did was create a new central bank to undo the Gold-dinar that Gaddafi had implemented. I think this is a relatively recent development of imperialism.


Monopolies became entrenched around the late 1800s before the formation of our modern credit system. A credit system which Lenin nor Marx could not commentate on as the the gold standard had not been dropped in place of the US dollar yet. Libya's threat to the US dollar would lower the demand for the US dollar and weaken its purchasing power. The US has a trade deficit, thus its dollars flood foreign markets, particularly those which it extracts value from. Its military opens up new markets and creates more capital in the process of capital accumulation.
Michael Hudson explains this much better than I can, and he is foremost the leading economist in formulation of American imperialism and the debt economy.

File: 1608528196337.jpg (109.14 KB, 960x906, IMG_20200612_005943.jpg)


I'm not sure if I am being too contrarian, but I think that maybe economics was split into micro and macro as an effort to destroy the LToV. Seeing that Microeconomics was built upon the assumption of the bourgeois economist Alfred Marshall and his conception of marginal utility, I hold a lot of skepticism. Pair that with Keynes- a student of Marshal- who later built the conception that the economy's malaise was due problems with aggregate demand via Mashall's axioms that supply and demand determine value, then I feel loss. I basically believe these divisions are arbitrary, yet I'm not sure how far I can go against the grain. Are there books from the perspective of a classical economist or Marxist who deals with this topic. I was inspired a lot by Cockshott in this regard.


microeconomics is basically pseudoscience on the same tier as Jungian psychoanalysis. it’s all just speculation without any falsifiability. I don’t think it’s intentional, just that lolberts and neolibs are too divorced from reality to see it.


I understand that as the majority of microeconomics, and economics as a whole, is divorced from political economy. Microeconomics particularly ignores any repucussions to society; instead focusing on a framework of atomised firms. Ideology is left to fill in gaps. Particularly, the emhasis on exchange value ("commodity fetishism") which I would argue the majority of macroeconomics seems to make the mistake as well. The gravitas of value is simply underestimated at best.


Micro/macro split has been shrinking in relevance since the Lucas critique. It isn't really a thing anymore.


US colleges still split into separate classes


They're different lenses suited for different problems but micro still acknowledges the wider society and macro still acknowledges the individual. The perspectives aren't at odds.

File: 1608528195113-0.png (214.35 KB, 1200x1123, mad scientist.png)

File: 1608528195113-1.gif (16.25 KB, 620x466, entropy.gif)


I want to get good at using math for things and practical issues but I'm kind of a brainlet. If you guys could post math formulas and equations for things, what they mean and how I can use them I'd greatly appreciate it.

EG above
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


E = mc²


If you are German I can just send you my analysis script. Teaches you everything you need to know about higher level mathematics.


Introduction to Electrodynamics by David Griffiths might be what you’re looking for. it goes over the math you need for the book and it teaches you all about electricity and magnetism which are very easy to experiment with by just picking up a breadboard and some wires and batteries.


What kind of things do you do? As someone with a maths degree it isn't all that practical. The most useful is probably trigonometry and just knowing algebra well, so you can rearrange equations to find out stuff.


what's an analysis script?

File: 1608528192779.png (2.82 MB, 1920x1080, 1584479929023-1.png)


This thread is for large-scale improvements or even small tweaks in society that are impossible to implement under capitalism. Inspiration for this thread came after reading this
>Today, we have insight into why a person handling copper day in and day out would have protection from a bacterial threat: Copper is antimicrobial. It kills bacteria and viruses, sometimes within minutes. In the 19th century, exposure to copper would have been an early version of constantly sanitizing one's hands.
>A study from 2015 found that a different coronavirus, human coronavirus 229E, which causes respiratory tract infections, could still infect a human lung cell after five days of being on materials like teflon, ceramic, glass, silicone rubber, and stainless steel. But on copper alloys, the coronavirus was “rapidly inactivated.”
>So given how well it could work, for hospital infections and for health more generally, why isn’t copper everywhere? Why isn’t every door knob, every subway rail, every ICU room, made of copper? Why can we easily buy stainless steel water bottles, but not copper? Where are the copper iPhone cases?
>There might also be a perception that copper is too expensive, Schmidt said, despite the fact that the numbers indicate it would ultimately save money. One of Keevil and Schmidt's studies from 2015 did the math: The cost of treating an HAI ranges from $28,400 to $33,800 per patient. Installing copper on 10 percent of surfaces cost $52,000 and prevented 14 infections over the course of the 338-day study. If you take the lower end of the HAI treatment cost ($28,400), then those 14 prevented infections saved a total of $397,600, or $1,176 a day.
So while the material and reason to use copper for most things are there. The kind of short-term market logic that makes it impossible to do anything about climate change also prevents this move from being made.
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


> 3. It is necessary, in the third place, to ensure such a cultural advancement of society as will secure for all members of society the all-round development of their physical and mental abilities, so that the members of society may be in a position to receive an education sufficient to enable them to be active agents of social development, and in a position freely to choose their occupations and not be tied all their lives, owing to the existing division of labour, to some one occupation.

>What is required for this?

>It would be wrong to think that such a substantial advance in the cultural standard of the members of society can be brought about without substantial changes in the present status of labour. For this, it is necessary, first of all, to shorten the working day at least to six, and subsequently to five hours. This is needed in order that the members of society might have the necessary free time to receive an all-round education. It is necessary, further, to introduce universal compulsory polytechnical education, which is requiredin order that the members of society might be able freely to choose their occupations and not be tied to some one occupation all their lives. It is likewise necessary that housing conditions should be radically improved, and that real wages of workers and employees should be at least doubled, if not more, both by means of direct increases of wages and salaries, and, more especially, by further systematic reductions of prices for consumer goods.

>These are the basic conditions required to pave the way for the transition to communism.

>Only after all these preliminary conditions are satisfied in their entirety may it be hoped that work will be converted in the eyes of the members of society from a nuisance into "life's prime want" (Marx), (8) that "labour will become a pleasure instead of being a burden" (Engels), (9) and that social property will be regarded by all members of society as the sacred and inviolable basis of the existence of society.

>Only after all these preliminary condi
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Doesn't copper oxidize, effectively having to be replaced every 10-20 years because it's surface wouldn't inactivate viruses anymore?


i wonder if you could just sand/scruff the surface??


No, read the piece
>Another reason copper may have been passed over for steel, plastic, or glass is that it can easily tarnish and requires a lot of cleaning to remain shiny. “But copper is antimicrobial regardless of how grody it looks, if it turns green on you, it still has the ability to kill bacteria and viruses and fungi,” he said.


Whales are one of the best ways to sustainably store carbon away from the environment because they eat a lot and then sink to the bottom of the ocean.

Why are whales going extinct? Over-fishing, pollution, lots of reasons

>Now we turn to the economic side of the solution. Protecting whales has a cost. Mitigating the many threats to whales involves compensating those causing the threats, a group that includes countries, businesses, and individuals. Ensuring that this approach is practical involves determining whales’ monetary value.



I wanted to let everyone know that Verso Books is having a sale were everything is 40% off.
They have books by Zizek, David Harvey, classics from marx, lenin, trotsky, etc.
Take a look if you want to satisfy your commodity fetish in the form of paperbacks.
5 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I've read Sex and Failed Absolute. is that basically the same as Absolute Recoil?


>order from Verso
>over 5 weeks shipping time
>it's all cheap thin print-on-demand tier paper


>They have pretentious shit, confused shit, and good books that are in the public domain and online already. 40 % off!!


They really should switch to acid free paper.


I've never ordered directly from Verso, but yeah, their books are shit quality. Not only paper-wise. Some are OCRed from other publisher's editions that were sold out, with absolutely no quality checks. So you get wrong letters and missing punctuation.
This level of sloppiness for such a publisher is simply incomprehensible to me. If I knew it'd be this bad I'd rather get a torned up used copy of the other publisher's sold out edition for a heavily inflated price.
Fuck Verso. Never again.

File: 1608528185027.png (259.18 KB, 1080x608, 1596687798695.png)


His works contain explicit references to ancient islamic texts, some say cosmic horror is a pessimistic inversion of sufist cosmology. Some of his stories, like the nameless city, is a direct reference to a story contained within the quran. Here are some direct quotes:
>At one time I formed a juvenile collection of Oriental pottery and objets d’art, announcing myself as a devout Mohammedan and assuming the pseudonym of “Abdul Alhazred” – which you will recognise as the author of that mythical Necronomicon which I drag into various of my tales […]. (letter to Edwin Baird, February 3, 1924)
>The absurdity of the myth I was called upon to accept and the sombre greyness of the whole faith compared with the Eastern magnificence of Mahometanism, made me de-finitely agnostic […].10
You can read more here:
5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


It's just slow which means people who are interested in this sort of thing are more likely to see it eventually since the turnover if threads is less

most people aren't on here 24/7 and this is a bitbof a niche topic


*bit of


Its niche but I like it.


I remembered from that the biography of Lovecraft included that in his homeschooling, he was able to read the thousand and one nights, developing an love for eastern culture, even adopting an arabic name (this of course is when he is a child).
I'm glad he did it.I always liked his books, and I still love the city withouth name.
Fucking ancient intelligent cocodriles, so ancient that even death has already died



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


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.


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


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.


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


>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.


>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.


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.


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


Human beings have an innate need to have control over their lives, and also to feel as if the people around them facilitate the sense of control. As an anarchist, I believe that, for example, workplaces ought to be owned and run democratically by their workers, because this kind of economic arrangement, called workers self-management, meets the human needs of the workers for autonomy. It seems very unusual to suggest that meeting the innate human need for autonomy is somehow contrary to human nature when we have reason to believe that people having autonomy is associated with positive psychological outcomes. Being trained for compliance not only undermines people's autonomy but also reduces their creative and intellectual faculties. Another study found that the use of controlling teaching methods makes children more prone to helpless behavior, and this interferes with their performance. We can look further at her hierarchy affects people by considering the impact of competition on human relationships. Hierarchical systems, by their very nature, create centers of power. These centers of power may or may not be treated as scarce resources that people have to compete with each other to obtain. Indeed, capitalist societies valorize the notion that individuals ought to compete with each other for the acquisition of wealth and resources. Alfie Kohn writes,
>In the workplace, one tries to remain at friendly terms with one's colleagues, but there is guardedness, a part of the self held in reserve. Even when no rivalry exists at the moment, one never knows whom one will have to compete against next week.

Edward Deci contrasts autonomous motivation and controlled motivation as follows,
>Autonomous motivation really means to do something with a full sense of willingness, volition, endorsement of the activity. It's having a sense of "this is what I want to be doing now. This is what I choose to be doing now". The experience that goes along with what we call controlled motivation is that I'm feeling pressured and intense about it. "Those forces are operating on me and making me do this", for instance.

One study looked at the relationship between autonomous motivation, controlled motivation and the outcome of interpersonal therapy for recurrent depression. It found that,

>In the entire sample, both the therapeu
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
25 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


At this point I'm pretty sure that anon is a teenager who decided he wanted to be a communist so he read a handful of short articles and thinks we know what lens he's using when he takes the negative positions itt. Upon being correctly dismissed for failing to present any logical case for his position he doubled down with obtuse examples that make sense from his frame of reference but have left us mystified because he never really elaborated on what he means by "competition" as it pertains to the OP or why every analysis of human interaction has to specifically reference propagation of the species.

Hopefully in the future he reads more theory because the path of contrarianism leads more easily to reactionary thought.


>social power imbalances that exist outside of material conditions within the bourgeoisie - proletarian paradigm
but from those posts it seems like “hierarchy” is just a system of privileges. privileges are really just your rights to interact with certain items in a certain way. that’s the whole basis of property. which puts it under the Marxist definition of class.


This is the type of person who uses "anarkiddie" unironically. Take a good look so that you know what kind of galactic intellect you're up against.


>galactic intellect
Nothing i said is hard to grasp, actually. OP argues that hierarchy prevents the full potential of humans and is therefore in contradiction to their nature. He ignores that individuals may benefit from supporting a hierarchy that is detrimental to society as a whole. In such a scenario there is no contradiction between human nature and the negative consequences thereof. The only way such a scenario can not exist is if selection operates not on the level of the individual, but that of the collective.
>but have left us mystified because he never really elaborated on what he means by "competition"
Why am i asked to specify a term that OP used before me? It's fine if he uses it, but if greentext it then i suddenly have to "define" it? Get that shit out of here faggot.
>or why every analysis of human interaction has to specifically reference propagation of the species
If you talk about human nature and "key psychological needs" while coming up with a model that doesn't include evolution you are a brainlet, plain and simple. Not to mention that OP never specified why "competence, relatedness, and autonomy" are the end all be all of human nature. Selective sourcefagging.


Forgive me for answering your question with more questions, but do you consider the leaders of the vanguard party to be proletarians? Would you say that they have more agency/autonomy than workers, the same because they represent the class, or less because they have to realize the ideals of a class that may not best represent their material interests?


Were his works a coping mechanism because dialectics failed?


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.


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


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.



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 ] Next | Catalog | Home