/edu/ - Education

>>6686
>Historically fascism has only caused misery, stagnation and death for the majority of those who experience it - especially in the long-run - part-taking in unethical and criminal behavior in 'achieving' this.
Proofs? idk man seems pretty telling when it takes literally fucking everyone to take out a country the size of texas and only actually taking them out when they started running out of resources to deal with the fact everyone was dogpiling on them.
>That's staggeringly incorrect, given that there are plenty of literal fags and transhumanists in the rightoid ranks as well. That's also not the biggest part or problem of your "groups" because the main issue is the promotion of socio-economics systems that are illogical, inefficient and finally ethically abhorrent.
>literal fags and transhumanists
we don't accept them.
also why are you socalist when iphone 5 communism 600,000,000?

>>6654
…to this?

>>6051
They may coincide with general Marxist ideas, but over-all they divert into ideological pseduo-intellectualism, with various flavors of nihilism and other shite.

>>6148
his goal is blowing marxism to pieces

Because according to post modern theory, china would be Communist

Postmodernism doesn't exist. It was constructed in American academia.

>>6661
Like i said, full of centrists and right wingers, but is not unexpeced, since they mosty repeat news from the propaganda multiplier or repeating from memes/screencaps from reddit/4chan, what do you expect it would happen, honestly another thing that place teached me is to cool it and not care too much about anything the internet do and if you don't like it just leave to not bust your head as most of it is shit flinging, screaming and egomaniacal people going up their moral high horses to shit on those people they see as wrong over, not caring about internet bullshit really does wonder for your brain.

>>6665
>to cool it and not care too much about anything the internet do
I learned that lesson way before KYM, but good for you m8.

>>6660
>>inb4 just make more jobs
>This is neither infinite, nor efficient, and moreover it's against the interest of the elite upper classes to provide jobs or products for all, see pic related.
Not sure how that works. The rich need people to do the work they can't do. If they want to make more money, they'll either have to gouge prices through practices that most capitalists deem as immoral and anti-capitalist, see: Adam Smith on landlords, or they'll have to increase the product, or they'll have to make some sort of scientific advancement. Excluding the first, which we can all agree is a pan-ideological issue that everyone besides a few hates, the other two end up benefiting everyone else. More product is needed to be made by more workers, more people get more jobs. Retard. The latter is obvious.
>A) Would be protested by a significant portion of the population
pimp slap em and reintroduce conscription for men, and make it applied for nonmarried, employed women. badda boom.
>B) unsupported by the ruling class, who purposefully changed wage labor to force women to work to let people earn enough money to live and support their family, helping to further alienate family from one another through daily isolation from one another.
Cart before the horse. Certain people supported second-wave feminism, feminism let women work, Capitalists reduced their prices for labour seeing the higher supply of it. Retards who ironically are in agreeance with leftyshit economics caused a harmful cycle that can only be solved by cutting off the supply of labour.
>The Smoot-Hawley Act put high import taxes on over 20,000 products which, due to the depression in the other parts of the international market exacerbated inflation by creating price-wage gaps that spiraled into an utter collapse.
It's rather debated if the Smoot-Hawley act actually had a hand in worsening the situation. To you it may seem cut and dry, but to me it seems way more inconclusive. Then again, social issues are more of my forte. I ain't no economist, and I don't see that changing because I see social issues as more important than economic issues.
>Because those aren't dichotomies, capitalism has a predictedPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>6684
>The rich need people to do the work they can't do
Yes to make a profit, but they also need to have leverage over people so that they can't just demand fair pay.
>either have to gouge prices through practices that most capitalists deem as immoral and anti-capitalist
<Adam Smith
If it isn't already self-evident, not only does porky not actually give a damn about Adam Smith (especially given their constant attempts to remove regulations) but have no qualms with unethical behavior (see any sweatshop, private army and CEO scandal).
>the other two end up benefiting everyone else
Except they don't. More product doesn't = good because A) too much availability devalues demand, forcing them to create artificial demand by restricting products or making "better" products more expensive, as the infographic explains.
>retard
No, YOU are retarded if you think your naiive idea actually makes sense when the system itself does not do so in reality on purpose. The amount of food produced in the USA far exceeds people's needs, but yet we still have people who starve or are forced to eat the shittiest, unhealthiest foods to survive, because price gouging. Companies like Star Market throw out up to 80% of their food despite it being still edible because it's an excess production.
>pimp slap em and reintroduce conscription for men, and make it applied for nonmarried, employed women
That ain't gonna work, Gung-ho Joe
>Certain people supported second-wave feminism
Porky, call a spade, a spade.
>Retards who ironically are in agreeance with leftyshit economics
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>6687
>Yes to make a profit, but they also need to have leverage over people so that they can't just demand fair pay.
I wonder how they do that. hmm.
>If it isn't already self-evident, not only does porky not actually give a damn about Adam Smith (especially given their constant attempts to remove regulations) but have no qualms with unethical behavior (see any sweatshop, private army and CEO scandal).
Yes and he doesn't give a shit about Marx either.
>How is a literal capitalist market economy LEFTIST? Stop associating retard liberals with leftism when they're dumbass centrists. The Soviet economy and Female work force already demonstrates that a leftist economy had women not forced to work by the need to support their family but merely given the option to pursue their interests and a career and also be able to have a family without having to worry about things like electricity bills, taxes, healthcare costs and other rubbish that might make a domestic life hard to support.
name literally anyone who was pro-immigration, pro-women rights, pro-gayshit, etc. who didn't describe themselves as a socialist, particularly when those ideas were "on the fringe." And wait, are you seriously saying that "you must work or u will starve" is bad? Where the fuck do you think the food comes from? Everything we've built in our society is created by transiting the effort needed to hunt, farm, or herd into the effort to create literally anything else. If you seriously say "Women will work because they want to in communism" then that's fucking retarded. You will need to work in communism in the same vein that you will need to work in capitalism.
Assuming that women will get to choose to work under socialism is fucking ridiculous because it implies so many different things. If women choose, do men not have the choice? If women choose, why would they choose? If it's a choice to work, then who will work besides the likely minority who won't devulge in earthly pleasures? So many base fucking questions that are just answered by "Just make 'em work."
>And therein lies your problem, social and economic issues are connected things, not separate or dichotomous, that's why capitalism and communism are Socio-Economic systems and not a social or economic systPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

I'm reading Orientalism by Edward W. Said. It's interesting enough. It's illuminating for showing that a lot of conversations about the middle east or otherwise "orient" is rife with orientalist thinking.

>>6538
Here's a list of German "sentences" that are one word long: >>6106 I'm building a list of around 600 words that closely follows the list of basic vocabulary from Fluent Forever and will put it in that thread. (I can't make everything what the FF list asks for because some translations just have too much ambiguity and especially the prepositions are hard/impossible to translate.)

Just finished The Governance of China by Xi Jinping (2014). This is a collection of speeches. Did you know that China has over one billion people? Xi Jinping is here to tell you that. 24 times. He often makes references to various writers from several centuries ago, to folk sayings and so on, and there are very helpful footnotes, but I have to say it's pretty boring overall. There is also an appendix that tells you about his life and that China has over one billion people. He comes across as someone who is serious about fighting corruption (that was also the impression in leaked internal communication of our friends from the American Intelligence community who seemed upset about that for some reason) and someone who cares a lot about how ordinary people are doing. He namedrops Marxism a lot, but whether he has a deep grasp of it I cannot tell on the basis of these speeches.

>>6679 (me)
I will translate it and give it to some kids

>>6672
I read Vol. 1 and the first 8 chapters of Vol. 2
I belive it is a good idea to take the hegelian approach and study economics as the history of economic thought and start with Petty's treatise of taxes and contributions continue with wealth of nations and Ricardo's Principles and then read theories of surplus value and finally re-read after having already a solid understanding of marxism das Kapital and continue with accumulation of capital by luxemburg and hilferding's finance capital.
that's by basic economics study plan so far

>>6673
Alright good luck lol I found even reading excerpts of Smith tiresome tbqh

>>6673
>>6671
There is literally 0 point to reading political economy texts in current year. Don't waste your time; read the Unique instead.

>>6675
let us enjoy our autism
>>6673
since you read 8 chapters of Vol 2 why not read the first chapter on Smith which is Ch 10? IIRC its all about smith confusing constant capital which later develops into Marx calling him foolish for thinking all revenue can be resolved into v+s

>>6676
i think i am gonna read chapter 10 and 19 of Vol.2 before before I start with WoN

Preface: A Philosophical Fantasy – Steven Shaviro. 2009. in « Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics » (MIT)

This book originated out of a philosophical fantasy. I imagine a world in which Whitehead takes the place of Heidegger. Think of how important Heidegger has been for thinking and critical reflection over the past sixty years. What if Whitehead, instead of Heidegger, had set the agenda for postmodern thought? What would philosophy be like today? What different questions might we be asking? What different perspectives might we be viewing the world from?
The parallels between Heidegger and Whitehead are striking. Being and Time was published in 1927, Process and Reality in 1929. Two enormous philosophy books, almost exact contemporaries. Both books respond magisterially to the situation (I’d rather not say the crisis) of modernity, the immensity of scientific and technological change, the dissolution of old certainties, the increasingly fast pace of life, the massive reorganizations that followed the horrors of World War I. Both books take for granted the inexistence of foundations, not even fixating on them as missing, but simply going on without concern over their absence. Both books are antiessentialist and antipositivist, both of them are actively engaged in working out new ways to think, new ways to do philosophy, new ways to exercise the faculty of wonder.
And yet how different these two books are: in concepts, in method, in affect, and in spirit. I’d like to go through a series of philosophical questions and make a series of (admittedly tendentious) comparisons, in order to spell out these differences as clearly as possible.

1. The question of beginning
Where does one start in philosophy? Heidegger asks the question of Being: “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” But Whitehead is splendidly indifferent to this question. He asks, instead: “How is it that there is always something new?” Whitehead doesn’t see any point in returning to our ultimate beginnings. He is interested in creation rather than rectification, Becoming rather than Being, the New rather than the immemorially old. I would suggest that, in a world where everything from music to DNA is continually being sampled and recombined, and where the shelf life of an idea, no less than of a fashion in clothing, can be measured in months if not weeks, Whitehead’s question is the truly urgent one. Heidegger flees the chaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

For a second I thought that the one on the pic is Luka

>>5152
>All of these are on libgen lol
Oh, I must be blind then. Thanks again

>>5146
wtf is going on here

Heidegger was a nazi opinions discarded wont read anything he wrote