[ 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

File: 1653163299194-0.png (30.86 KB, 1002x77, but muh mud pies.png)

File: 1653163299194-1.png (42.55 KB, 1004x119, human labor power.png)


>Any basic study of economics shows you the stupidity of the LTV

anyone who says this

1. has not even read volume 1 of das kapital

2. confuses value and price

3. has unironically used the mud pies argument, insisting that marx is saying that worthless labor creates use value, even though he has said the opposite (pic 1)

4. thinks capitalists reinvest profits in the company even though profits are defined as whatever the capitalist pockets *after* dealing with business expenses and maintenance costs and paying off investors and workers.

5. thinks capitalists "deserve" the surplus value because they "took on risk"

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


additional reference


Shouldn't you post this in the >>5576 or >>4210 theads?


where do those picture quotes come from?


you don’t need to debunk every last thing some idiot says on the internet


not OP but this particular idiocy pops up again and again so I think it's worthwhile

File: 1653086675412.jpg (2.92 MB, 4879x3021, 1653081371165.jpg)


I sometimes (actually rarely) hear eastern European people mention the colonization of Russia. It is likened to the colonization of central and western Europe towards the rest of the world. I‘m wondering, is that a justified comparison? I know next to nothing about that, so if you can provide any literature that would be great.


Mod note: Reposting. Removed due to false positive previously.


im not sure you’d find much literature on it since merely suggesting the idea that russian identity and nationality was forced onto different cultural groups instead of it being the result of everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya is pretty politically incorrect, has been for a long time and is probably even more politically incorrect now


Can you elaborate on that? Because to me it‘s still ambiguous in what sense it‘s politically incorrect. In the sense that it‘s a lie and therefore rejected? Or that it‘s the truth that is being suppressed?

File: 1652131463346.jpg (602.39 KB, 814x994, 1651315463397893291.jpg)


I've been wondering recently: the people who own nothing and produce nothing are the lumpenproletariat, and that includes hobos and criminals. However, organized criminals have bosses who take part of their gains, same as a capitalist takes a wage laborer's surplus value. Can thus mafia bosses and drug kingpins be called a "lumpenbourgeoisie", a specific type of bourgeois that takes the surplus value of illegal or extractive activities? I've seen the term applied to compradors. Also, Mike Hudson comes to mind - he claims the primary contradiction of modern capitalism is not between labor and capital, but the FIRE sector and everyone else, arguing that this industry produces no real physical value and just seeks rents off moving numbers around - could this also fall under the same umbrella?
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


white collar fraud is pretty universally vilified
in fact, i'd wager it's even more controversial and taboo than murder inc shit



Where are the TV shows where the police hunt down criminal businessmen for the audience to have a feeling of cathartic and vicarious justice?


Isn't that what that "In the name of the people" Chinese show is about?


In a country with a Marxist government. When it comes to the West these people are only used as an excuse to handwave capitalism's systemic issues away ("crony capitalism") without real malice, unlike what we see towards people in the ghetto selling drugs.


Guys I just finished Capital Volume 2 I'm so proud of myself. That book was really long and contained a lot of calculations but at long last I have finished. Of course I don't binge read it all the way, sometimes I try to read one chapter then switch to less intensive stuff, like reading Stalin or Hoxha (or anything that I like) for instance. So here is what I think:
1) So the first several chapters is spent discussing the circulation: M-(C+LP)-Pr…Pr1-C1-M1.
M: original money capital
C: Commodity
LP: Labour power (basically you hire someone).
Pr: The production process
Pr1: After you have produced stuff
C1: New commodity (to be sold)
M1: A larger amount of money (after you have sold stuff).
The discussion is rather long-winded, but I think here Marx tries to hammer the fundamental points again and again so that's fine i guess.
Here there is also some mention about 1) Gold 2) Services, such as transportation which is slightly different but will need to be referred to later on
2) Then there are the chapters about circulation time, labour time, production time (for example when you let wine in a barrel for like 10 years, that's when production time > labour time), so on and so on and so on. I think those chapters are quite okay, although there is a chapter in which the authors investigate the effects of advanced capital and turnover period, in which the maths is quite complicated, but I just do not think that there is much to it although it's true that the results show that this requires credit but i mean that's obvious. There are also some parts about fixed and circulating capital which is important, and Marx hammers down on Adam Smith and Ricardo which is rather complicated yeah I know I want to know how capitalism is bound to have crisis not watch some economist dissing on other economists.
After that there are also some chapters discussing effects of circulating surplus value, variable capitals, … Here there is discussion of how the hell can the system get the money for the surplus value. So for pre-credit time it's from gold-producing industries, and for credit-era the capitalists keep sending in money so that later on they will get back that money and even more money. Think Keynesian spending or other such stuff. Also effect of wage increase is discussed.
I think that some parts about fixed and circulating capital is rather complicated and do not show the main points.
3) Now we Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Thanks comrade. Volume 1 is of course a classic. The first 3 chapters might appear difficult at first, but after that it's basically a breeze. The book is like half theory half factory horror reports. You know, in machine learning or deep learning books they throw a lot of matheamatical equations around which is very different from capital in which the calculations though still complicated is much simpler compared to modern day textbooks.


Why is it taking you all so long to read these books? It took me a few days to read both. Is the American education system that poor?


Holy shit I did too.



yes :(

File: 1652856454532.png (597.9 KB, 604x898, Joseph Campnigga.png)


What do you guys think of "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell? I haven't read many non-fiction books before because I am a midwit with severe ADHD, but I'm going to try to finish this one even if it kills me lol.


Would be nice to state what this book is even about


Isn't that the book Georges Lucas used to make Star Wars?

File: 1624420553302.jpg (102.99 KB, 800x533, 1611637443356.jpg)


Any one has any reads on atheism that are not just "I hecking love science" like the new atheism movement was?
I remember seeing a book about atheism and german idealism; or idealism in general but I can't seem to find it.
Either way let's just talk about atheism in general.
11 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Lenin on the significance of militant materialism is pretty good but it's not about le heckin' based atheismarino it's about materialism and atheism's scientific development under Marx.


he wasn't an atheist
that's what i mean


I mean the guy asked for non-reddit tier atheism so I just gave him the closest thing, Spinoza's concept of God is so far removed from typical monotheism that he might as well have been an atheist. Ethics is just too good of a read to pass


what do you think is the typical monotheistic idea of god


usually it is the kind of personal god that is discussed when talking about things like the problem of evil etc


>A personal god, or personal goddess, is a deity who can be related to as a person,[1] instead of as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being".

>In the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, God is described as being a personal creator, speaking in the first person and showing emotion such as anger and pride, and sometimes appearing in anthropomorphic shape.[2] In the Pentateuch, for example, God talks with and instructs his prophets and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and happiness), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person. Personal relationships with God may be described in the same ways as human relationships, such as a Father, as in Christianity, or a Friend as in Sufism.[3]

>A 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center reported that, of U.S. adults, 70% view that "God is a person with whom people can have a relationship," while 15% believe that "God is an impersonal force."[4]

File: 1619942123710.png (68.81 KB, 1366x568, East Med 2.png)

 No.5576[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Post Copy pastas, videos and books which debunk common Fascist, Liberal talking points which are repeated often.
107 posts and 53 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Here's a list I've compiled of popular anticommunist authors (plus some others) admitting there was no such thing as the Holodomor. Feel free to copypaste it.

Anne Applebaum, Red Famine:
>"In practice, ‘genocide’, as defined by the UN documents, came to mean the physical elimination of an entire ethnic group, in a manner similar to the Holocaust. The Holodomor does not meet that criterion. The Ukrainian famine was not an attempt to eliminate every single living Ukrainian; it was also halted, in the summer of 1933, well before it could devastate the entire nation"
Stephane Courtois/Nicolas Werth, The Black Book of Communism:
>"Should one see this famine as a genocide of the Ukrainian people, as a number of Ukrainian historians and researchers do today? It is undeniable that the Ukrainian peasantry were the principal victims in the famine of 1932-33 (…) But proportionally the famine was just as severe in the Cossack territories of the Kuban and the Don and in Kazakhstan"
Orlando Figes, Revolutionary Russia 1891-1991:
>"No hard evidence has so far come to light of the regime's intention to kill millions through famine, let alone of a genocide campaign against the Ukrainians. Many parts of Ukraine were ethnically mixed. There is no data to suggest that there was a policy of taking more grain from Ukrainian villages than from the Russians or other ethnic groups in the famine area. And Ukraine was not the only region to suffer terribly from the famine, which was almost as bad in Kazakhstan."
Robert Service, Stalin - A Biography:
>"Although Stalin did not seek the extermination of all Ukrainians and Kazakhs, he certainly aimed to extirpate all opposition real and potential from among them. The ultimate objective, though, was to turn Ukraine and Kazakhstan into economically efficient Soviet republics. He therefore allowed both peoples to retain their culture…"
Stephen Kotkin, Stalin - Waiting for Hitler 1929-1941:
>This becomes “genocide” when the authors include the executions of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, poets, musicians, artists, church officials. They offer no evidence of intentional starvation or of ethnic targeting. They do not dwell on the ethnic Ukrainian agency in the alleged genocide against Ukrainians (in regions where lots of Russians lived and dPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Man, that I recognize damn near every name on this copy-paste is a real indicator of just how long I've studied this topic.


Excellent post though they deemphasize the impact of liberals and their fascist counter-parts. It's not just rationalizing, but its also a formation of golden calves (in the form of vague but generally accepted concepts so that disagreeing makes you appear to be a bad person) that they use to gaslight anyone that attempts to criticize idpol from an objective standpoint. For example the liberal slogan of black lives matter". On a base, superficial level, yeah there's nothing incorrect, but the problem is that
A) focusing on a specific identity in your rhetoric for ethics, immediately attracts the porky rhetoric about "muh privleg" and other identarian, divisive nonsense
B) it ignores the subversive and often rightist context of these phrases and concepts and their inherent use as a justification for dumb idpol shit promoted by rainbow-capitalist ideologues; a gateway for literal fed propaganda
It goes without saying that this also applies to rightoid slogans about stuff like "de jooz"


File: 1650829632839.png (364.3 KB, 700x490, ClipboardImage.png)

>>10444 (cheka'd)
>Robert Service
>tfw i inherited one of his books from my father


Are you fucking retarded. In other words a society specifically designed to oppress me, many of my friends, and entire ethnic groups, sexual minorities, neurological minorities, etc. It's materially impossible for me to support your system because it results in my being destroyed. Which proves the psychopathy of you right wingers: that you think this is okay because you think I deserve to die.

File: 1652169503307-0.jpeg (118.79 KB, 600x950, Jenny 2.jpeg)

File: 1652169503307-1.jpeg (46.54 KB, 313x507, Jenny.jpeg)


===Jenny Von Westphalen to Karl. 1839

My dear and only beloved,

Sweetheart, are you no longer angry with me, and also not worried about me? I was so very upset when I last wrote, and in such moments I see everything still much blacker and more terrible than it actually is. Forgive me, one and only beloved, for causing you such anxiety, but I was shattered by your doubt of my love and faithfulness. Tell me, Karl, how could you do that, how could you set it down so dryly in writing to me, express a suspicion merely because I was silent somewhat longer than usual, kept longer to myself the sorrow I felt over your letter, over Edgar, indeed over so much that filled my soul with unspeakable misery. I did it only to spare you, and to save myself from becoming upset, a consideration which I owe indeed to you and to my family.

Oh, Karl, how little you know me, how little you appreciate my position, and how little you feel where my grief lies, where my heart bleeds. A girl's love is different from that of a man, it cannot but be different. A girl, of course, cannot give a man anything but love and herself and her person, just as she is, quite undivided and for ever. In ordinary circumstances, too, the girl must find her complete satisfaction in the man's love, she must forget everything in love. But, Karl, think of my position, you have no regard for me, you do not trust me. And that I am not capable of retaining your present romantic youthful love, I have known from the beginning, and deeply felt, long before it was explained to me so coldly and wisely and reasonably. Oh, Karl, what makes me miserable is that what would fill any other girl with inexpressible delight – your beautiful, touching, passionate love, the indescribably beautiful things you say about it, the inspiring creations of your imagination – all this only causes me anxiety and often reduces me to despair. The more I were to surrender myself to happiness, the more frightful would my fate be if your ardent love were to cease and you became cold and withdrawn.

You see, Karl, concern over the permanence of your love robs me of all enjoyment. I cannot so fully rejoice at your love, because I no longer believe myself assured of it; nothing more terrible could happen to me than that. You see, Karl, that is why I am not so wholly thankful for, so wholly enchanted by your love, as it really deserves. That is why I often remind you of external matters, Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
59 posts and 38 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


On the contrary, a lot can be gleaned from the study of people's personal lives. Personal letters are some of those most valuable primary sources precisely because they lack a great deal of the calculated self-censorship in public addresses and published works. One can know the deepest fears and motivations of historical figures, or realize the personal occurrences which influenced important philosophies. One can also discover areas of unaddressed hypocrisy.


holding the copyright for these letters and removing them from public domain websites like Marxists.org is even grosser. The living already get no privacy, and the dead need no privacy. Marx and Jenny didn't believe in the afterlife, so why would they care that we have their letters? Their family allowed them to be published in the first place.


is marxism…………just a new religion…?
i need to run into town to shout this revelation


>tfw you will never have a woman simp for you as hard as jenny simped for marx

truly a chad of the time


Oh my god, Stirner was pulling the strings all along.

File: 1636493839807.jpg (47.05 KB, 800x800, unnamed (2).jpg)


The guy who made the Marx was not a statist videos wrote a book I am wondering what you think about it and if any of you have a pdf because I am not paying for it.
9 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Pity this book isn't getting more attention on here.


lets just assume this guy has only read whatever his college classes asked him to read?


also hes one of the few "youtubers" (can he even be called that?) i enjoy watching so i might read it some day


>Radicalism is in fact diametrically opposed to moralism: moralism means identifying individual guilt and disbursing punishment; radicalism means grasping the root of the issue, and the root of the issue is never individual guilt, but social relations.
I like this.


His video on Stephen Hick's garbage is very good. Too bad he's such a Nietzsche fanboy.


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.
21 posts and 22 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


done, hope it helps comrade


Niceu dess ne.
Thank you anonysan


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

I like this one.


The academic writing style for undergraduates can be summed up with a few key points/

1: Never make any claim that you don't have a source for. Have references for everything.
2: Write from the third person impersonal perspective.


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 ]
| Catalog | Home