/edu/ - Education

>>17546
hitler explicitly killed the left leaning socialists in his party. anyone who calls hitler a socialist is either a misinformation agent, or historically illiterate (or both).

>>17600
Not true. He made Richard Walter “agricultural Bolshevik” Darre the head of the Reich Food Estate.

>>17546
>>17598
We live under state-monopoly capital/imperialism where nation-states fight on the world-market as competing capitals. It's capitalism but the economic unit is as much nation-states as firms or families.

You'd be surprised how many Marxists really don't understand their own theory. Also the serious Marxists have always placed conventional (sane) economics first, and Marx was just one contributor to political economy and not the last.

Lolberts know they are lying and revel in the essential act of lying, and they insist you're going to be made to accept it. But, if the truth mattered, why are Marxists incapable of defending their position or anything real? Why does everyone keep allowing this faggotry to continue because we don't have to accept this level of obvious lying. No one bothers because the truth most people see is that they were thrown overboard and told that they're not worthy of existence, and that's all anyone really thinks about; who is selected to live and who is selected to die. That dominates everyone's thinking and that included the Marxists whose theory presupposed such a cosmic struggle.

As far as "Hitler was a socialist" talking points; Hitler advanced an extreme individualist philosophy of struggle for existence in which institutional authority invaded private life. You could be the freest person that ever was as long as you were a Nazi, and it was assumed that if you weren't a Nazi you didn't actually exist and couldn't exist and you had to be edited out of history. You were given unlimited freedom to be a Nazi and all other possible acts were by definition unfree. Under such conditions, no version of socialism worth acknowledging could exist. The state of Bismarck was more socialist than the Nazi thing because all the Nazis did was loot the country and gather all of the gold when the bottom fell out, and they had no other plan. The entire point of Nazism is to repudiate both the concept of a nation and anything socialist, and replace it with that gaudy show and screaming faggotry. It's pointless to speak of farcical "what is socialism" arguments because the Nazis said over and over that privatization and free enterprise were glorious in of themselves and culled the weak, and there literally couldn't be "society" as such. There was only what Nazis told you reality would be and you weren't allowed to speak of what anything was without the shrieking of said faggots.

>>17563
fwiw it sounds like a cool book, kinda describes why I'm more active in union agitation than the yDSA

>>25665
This works on retro hardware.

So the telegraph key you flip like a switch and static will come out the layden jar?

In Chapter 1, Section 5, Baudrillard begins by a description of the ontology of labour as the self-determined essence of man, by various citations, including Marcuse. This is the pinnacle of the Marxist concept, of Labour as the means by which man is subject over his personified essence in a dialectical manner (e.g. Entailing reversal in political economy, where his objectivity becomes the medium of his own subject, i.e. Man worships himself in money, rather than the other way round). In this way, man imparts himself into nature, and thus "humanises" nature, as Baudrillard says. With further citation from Marcuse, Baudrillard diagnoses Marxism as inhabiting the "protestant work ethic", by reference to Weber; that if Labour is the means by which abstract Man "creates" himself, then his very Being is determined by his subjection to productivity in labour:
<this aberrant sanctification of work has been the secret vice of Marxist political and economic strategy from the beginning.
After this, Baudrillard cites a brilliant excerpt from Walter Benjamin on the folly of Marxism's divinity of Labour (t. "Poesie et Revolution", 1971) which exposes the nonsense of esteeming Man's Being as a symptom of his capacity to labour (which, we must remember, was also the slogan above Auschwitz, "Arbeit Macht Frei"). Even "play" is defined by Marcuse as a "useless" product of a rationalised labour. Thus as Baudrillard sees it:
<In effect, the sphere of play is defined as the fulfillment of human rationality, the dialectical culmination of man's activity of incessant objectification of nature and control of his exchanges with it. It presupposes the full development of productive forces ; it "follows in the footsteps" of the reality principle and the trans­formation of nature. Marx clearly states that it can flourish only when founded on the reign of necessity. Wishing itself beyond labor but in its continuation, the sphere of play is always merely the esthetic sublimation of labor's constraints […] Work and non-work: here is a "revolutionary" theme. It is undoubtedly the most subtle form of the type of binary, structural opposition discussed above. The end of the end of exploitation by work is this reverse fascination with non-work, this reverse mirage of free time (forced time-free time, full time­ empty time: another paradigm that fixes the hegemony of a temporal order which is always merely tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

i thought u said u quit leftypol

beware psychoanalysis. lest you end up like an ineffectual crank that preaches eternal circular analysis of the current state of things, like zizek, a liberal, like contrapoints, or whatever the fuck happened to jordan peterson

Teste

>>25644
contrapoints and jordan peterson hate Lacan tho

>>24204
>Tudeh was a minor player in the actual revolution in 1979. The Soviets actually quit funding them because they thought they were a useless non-entity with little actual influence in Iran.
This misunderstands Abrahamian's perspective. By the time of the Iranian Revolution, the Tudeh had indeed become marginalized, but this wasn't always so. I find his focus on the Tudeh interesting precisely because it is important to analyze the historical developments that caused its demise, all while Iran continued and intensified its process of industrialization, modernization and, crucially, subordination to imperialist interests.

It was never a bad idea for a Marxist to ask oneself the question "what the fuck just happened?" after a religious national-bourgeois revolution when conditions were ripening for a communist one. In Iran, often considered the birthplace of modern Islamist politics as a mass movement, the question is yet more urgent.

>>24516
I feel like its possible the Tudeh party was never as popular as people like Abrahamian tell us it was and this is a result of historians like him focusing too much on Tudeh at the expense of other groups in Iran. Abrahamian is an old fashioned new left Marxist and for him the victory of a socialist faction is how history should have played out but didn't. So he goes looking for the biggest Marxist faction (Tudeh) and tries to ask "why did it fail?" and you do that you wind up developing tunnel vision.

>It was never a bad idea for a Marxist to ask oneself the question "what the fuck just happened?" after a religious national-bourgeois revolution when conditions were ripening for a communist one. In Iran, often considered the birthplace of modern Islamist politics as a mass movement, the question is yet more urgent.
The problem is the way in which Marxists approach this history. They are too teleological and misapply Marx's theories. Marx warned the Russian socialists not to take his history of capitalist development as a universal model that could be applied to Russia because his own work was based on studies of Germany, France, and Britain. But Marxists try to interpret Iranian history through Marx's history of Western Europe. "Well, socialist revolution is the next stage, so why didn't it happen? Maybe Iran was too feudal? was Khomeini a bourgeois nationalist or a fascist?" These are the wrong kinds of questions to be asking because Iran isn't Western Europe and stickers like "feudal" or "bourgeois nationalist" aren't something you can just paste onto every human society.

Iran also is a problem for Marxist historians because it defies their theories of revolution. Before 1979, the Iranian economy was growing, inequality was a serious issue but poverty was decreasing etc. The revolution wasn't motivated by socioeconomic grievances. Khomeini himself once declared that 'we didn't overthrow the Shah because of the price of bread.' Before 1978, US diplomats saw Iran as an island of stability. Nobody predicted the revolutionary outbreak between 1978 and 1979. I'd also say that Islamist mass politics really begun in the 1910s, anti-colonial movements based on Islam go all the way back to the 1900s. Foucault's writing on Iran have always been controversial because he pointed these things out. Islam was a drivingPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>24203
Why are you sperging out at someone you don't even disagree with?

bump for relevancy :v)

>>25093
- The Very Hungry Caterpillar
- ASPCA Ultimate Cat Care Manual
- Max Stirner's Art and Religion
- Marx's stuff
- The rest of Max Stirner's stuff
- Main story in arknights
- Hegel's stuff
- Side stories in arknights
- The Very Hungry Caterpillar (again)

>>25094
What if I want to learn League of Legends lore?

>>25094
ok now could you be kind and sincere with me? where do I start, where do I go?

What're Hegels most important works according to you guys? What's the craziest interpretation you've seen of it?

>>25620
the science of logic is hegel's most concise work.
and marx clearly styles his critique of political economy on it.

Did you at least get to have sex with her? It's all temporary anyways.

>>25546
yes but not too often

humblebrag

>>25485
>>25484
Moreover, the entire premise of education (as it currently exists) is one of submission. It isn't an accidental stroke of etymology that you have to 'submit' a paper ;).
To deviate from the accepted standards is an unconscionable act, and deserves to be met only with browbeating in the eyes of the imperious arbitrators.
If you truly think critically, you'll come to the realization that much of academia is a kind of 'ritual' more than it is anything transcendentally objective; most of its presuppositions are arbitrary and cannot be honestly defended, and so they fall back upon the circularity of their own tautological self-validation, either through demanding accreditation (circular) or through deferring to likeminded communities who already predispose themselves to the starting premise that education *must* be an inherent 'good', i.e. curating their argumentative experience with the likes of reddit and bluesky and academic forums and so on (tautological). The basis of contemporary education is to work backwards from a series of starting presuppositions and deem anyone who attempts to dissent anew from this as 'stupid' or 'ignorant' or 'crazy'. So-called 'common sense' is really just a form of brutal conformism, and it is fundamentally feminine in essence–it is best encapsulated with the spirit of the phrase 'Really? I can't even…' or something akin to that. The very notion that the fundamental foundations might be a festering source is treated as an inconceivably profaned thing. I don't share the same cynicism towards the future possibility of the human condition, or the reading of its full nature, as Eugene, but he is absolutely on the mark at least with respect to the current state of affairs.

Name a single philosopher who has produced anything of world shattering, history moving value from the modern universities. There isn't one. Probably the most interesting figures currently out there are those involved in the speculative realist movement, but in the end, irrelevance is the doomed fate of those who radically innovate (i.e. 'challenge') under this system. If you want to be a philosopher, OP, you must do it for the love of an enduring truth which might one day be excavated and embraced hermeneutically, assuming anything evePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>25486
BTW OP I have a degree in philosophy. It was a waste of time and money and most importantly sanity. All it did was further entrench my hatred for the capitalist world.
Anyone who currently thinks this shit is worthwhile, at least from a philosophical (and not, say, medical–assuming an honest doctor, of course) perspective, is as delusional and pliable to recuperation as someone like Chomsky. It's hilarious to see so many anarchists embrace university. Worshipping a microcosmic mirror of the dynamic the state already serves, thereby telling on themselves in the implicit process: "We want to abolish our lack of power, not to abolish power altogether–we'll forge it again in our image." Very similar logic to Zionism, wherein the phrase "never again" is perverted into indicating "never again TO THE LIKES OF US", rather than being a universalist renunciation of genocide.

>>25486
>>25487
I was a phil major for years and ended up dropping out and I agree 100% with what you are saying. Academia is just a recuperation factory.

>ideological brainwashing factories
reactionary rhetoric

>>25505
academia is anti-communist, sorry, the theory industry is an industry just like music and movie industries are, and its stimulated by Capital to toe the NATO line in similar ways