/edu/ - Education

>>25622
Nice man if you end up reading it let me know your thoughts! I'm shelving the Furies for now. I keep running into the issue of not being familiar enough with the history of the French revolution and it makes it somewhat frustrating to read through.

I got Wages of Destruction for christmas so probably gonna continue with that instead. In case anyone is interested in reading about the holocaust I read picrel last year and it was really interesting. It's not explicitly Marxist, but I do feel like it takes a very materialist approach (emphasizing food, housing, plunder, forced labor and anti-partisan activity to name what comes to mind right now) to the topic. Gerlach also takes into account the broader European dimension showing how policies regarding Europe's Jews differed from country to country, but also how these policies contrasted in the heartlands vs the occupied frontiers. He also writes about the 3 million Soviet POWs that were starved to death at the start of operation Barbarossa, which is something that is not talked about often in the mainstream.

>>25403
nationalism begins as a liberal movement with the french revolution, but has its prehistory in the reformation, where kings would claim sovereignty against the catholic church and so establish independence. it has since been appropriated by both the far left and far right as means of self-determination.
>>25395
national socialism was an existing movement which hitler became part of; he did not create it. the earliest mention of "national socialism" is in 1898, but it becomes official with rudolf jung's "der nationale sozialismus" (1919). in the book, anticapitalism and volkism is specified, with a special interest on fighting usury. there were of course internal divisions in NS, most notably the "socialist" wing in people like strasser, while hitler took the side of the industrialists.

>>25417
if you try making sense of japanese by comparing it to other languages it will only make it more difficult

https://sakubi.neocities.org/ some resource ocmpilation for learning japanese, it already assumes you know the basics

i wish i could choose a language to learn

>>25631
Learn Chinese or Russian anon

>>25634
why russian? i cant even travel to the country. i thought about chinese but i don't think im interested enough in it despite liking their gubbermint a lot

I am starting to read "Neurosis and civilization : a Marxist/Freudian synthesis" of Michael Schneider, but is my first book about the subject, and i am not experience in neither Freud nor Marx.

We may first read Lacan's assessment of Freud's project (1956):
>"Psychoanalysis should be the science of language inhabited by the subject. From the Freudian point of view man is the subject captured and tortured by language."
<Jacques Lacan, Seminar 3, Ch. 19, Sct. 3
This "torture" we can see structurally, by the separation of the signifier from the signified, and further, of the signifier's internal separation from itself, as we may read from chapter 14, from seminar 3:
<The signifier, as such, signifies nothing […] Experience proves it - the more the signifier signifies nothing, the more indestructible it is […] There's no other scientific definition of subjectivity than one that proceeds from the possibility of handling the signifier for purely signifying, not significant ends, that is, expressing no direct relation of the order of appetite […] the signifier, which is that it signifies nothing and is therefore always capable of yielding various meanings.
I take this to mean that the signifier "as such" (S) is separated by its formality from what is "signified" (s), and so, the appeal to the signifier (S) is an end in-itself, not a means to an end. An example is in religion, where the signifier "God" only refers to itself, and so is internally contentless. as an example, we may read hegel (1816):
<This proposition in its positive expression A = A is, in the first instance, nothing more than the expression of an empty tautology. It has therefore been rightly remarked that this law of thought has no content and leads no further.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl409.htm
Thus, the signifier cannot signify anything other than itself (A is A), yet the internal content of A is also empty, so A is not-A. Hegel works this out by applying negativity to give identity totality, but Lacan resists totality, speaking of "set" (Ch. 14, Sct. 1):
<I said a set, I didn't say a totality. As a matter of fact, the notion of structure is analytic […] I think that you're well enough oriented to understand that the notion of structure is by itself already a manifestation of the signifier.
So then, in tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

We can also compare Marx's structuralism against Baudrillard's poststructuralism, by looking at simulacrum. Marx insists upon a real relation in symbols:
<The fact that money can, in certain functions, be replaced by mere symbols of itself, gave rise to that other mistaken notion, that it is itself a mere symbol […] Lawyers started long before economists the idea that money is a mere symbol, and that the value of the precious metals is purely imaginary. This they did in the sycophantic service of the crowned heads, supporting the right of the latter to debase the coinage, during the whole of the middle ages, by the traditions of the Roman Empire and the conceptions of money to be found in the Pandects.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch02.htm
<the issue of paper money must not exceed in amount the gold (or silver as the case may be) which would actually circulate if not replaced by symbols […] Paper money is a token representing gold or money. The relation between it and the values of commodities is this, that the latter are ideally expressed in the same quantities of gold that are symbolically represented by the paper. Only in so far as paper money represents gold, which like all other commodities has value, is it a symbol of value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
Thus, money can only be "real" if it directly represents a proportion of gold or silver, to Marx. This distinction is older than Marx, however, such as in the work of Adam Smith (1776), who distinguishes between the "real" and "nominal" values of currency based in their relationship to exchange. For example, a currency which is depreciated by excess, loses its real value, while preserving its nominal (or "face" value). £1 is still £1, but may purchase less per unit. The £1 is constant, while its purchasing power is variable. This variability is the measure of its "real" value, since it represents what it can really exchange for, not what it denominates. For example, being a millionaire in America makes one really rich, while being a millionaire in Zimbabwe makes one poor. Equally, being a millionaire yesterday meant more than being a mPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Baudrillard:
>In the distinction between exchange value and use value, Marxism shows its strength but also its weakness. The presupposition of use value- the hypothesis of a concrete value beyond the abstraction of exchange value, a human purpose of the commodity in the moment of its direct relation of utility for a subject- is only the effect of the sys­tem of exchange value, a concept produced and developed by it […] He does not radicalize the schema to the point of reversing this appearance and revealing use value as produced by the play of exchange value […] In other words, the signified "use value" here is still a code effect, the final precipitate of the law of value.
<Mirror of Production, Chapter 1, Section 2
Thus, "use-value" is essentially a "value in use" (as per Smith). Marx makes a category error by stating, for example, that "a use-value can exist, without being a value", since he (in the german text), distinguishes "use-value" ("Gebrauchswert") from "utility" ("Nützlichkeit"). If indeed, as Baudrillard properly concludes, use-value is the symptom of the form of value (e.g. money) relating value to itself, then use-value is an effect, not a cause, and so cannot exist outside of the commodity form, but is only within it. As a "code effect" then, use-value is signified by its constitutive status as commodity (e.g. a use-value is only produced in being subjectively determined as an exchange-value, or a product of abstract labour, concretely expressed. Thus as Marx states, useless labour "does not count", and so cannot precede its abstraction. This leads to great confusion, in the same sense that Engels footnotes, separating "labour" from "work" in itself. The originary abstraction of value of course makes sense from an empirical outlook, where "labour-time" as measure of value is obviously accounted from wages, *not* the other way round, owing to its particular historicity, not a transhistorical essence, as Marx and Engels assume. Baudrillard quotes Pierre Naville on this point, in Section 3). Here is further controversy, since if use-value is only within the commodity form (i.e. the form of value), then is our "imaginary" value equally an imaginary use-value…?

Baudrillard offers his political critique:
>Failing to conceive of a mode of social wealth other than that founded on labor and production, Marxism no loPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

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.

New Ancient Americas video on the Mesoamerican ballgame

>>25618
i was shocked to find out that rice had also been domesticated in the americas after watching this video
https://www.science.org/content/article/rice-so-nice-it-was-domesticated-thrice
and then i couldn't stop thinking about how many other plants/animals may have been domesticated in the americas but were lost after colonization

>>25626
It raises questions about how we'd be able to tell if a species had been domesticated and later feralized, or whether we would think to look for that. If you look at the wild types of many cultivars, there is not much to suggest they would be serviceable once domesticated.

>>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.

>>25358
The value is derived from rent. Someone speculating on a painting is no different than a real-estate agent or an arbitrageur for any other good. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall only applies to the market in aggregate.

>>25575
Also luxury goods and unproductive labor are part of circulating capital. So the value is backed by rent and arbitrage.

>>25573

>never
<4 times
>all
<7 times
>always
<3 times
>everyone
<6 times
>no one
<3 times


someone's really sure of himself

>>25591
It's eugenics-kun, so yes. His schtick is to pontificate at people and disregard all criticism as a narcissistic coping mechanism due to his abused childhood.

>>25556
>Esochannealogy community
THERES A COMMUNITY?

>>25557
Use this archive in AI.

>>25558
In the /b/ of Wizchan.

New version of Esochannealogy!

Extremely dangerous. Please be cautious with this technique.

Let me explain. A "magolithic" is a fragment of a soul that can be consumed. Consuming it causes a psychological change in favor of the parasitic soul.

This object, also called an esocanaleological horcrux, grants a form of immortality to the soul, in the sense of preserving it.

Take QAnon, for example. Did it help Donald Trump? Yes. But not for free—there was a price. QAnon generated multiple versions of its soul from its magolithic. Some of those versions invaded the Capitol. It's a sad story, but an illuminating one.

In the end, QAnon's magolithic isn't made up only of its supporters. Those who oppose it also feed it, ensuring its psychological imprint endures through time.

Similarly, movements like the MBL/Mission believe they possess a tool that makes them more powerful—and they do. They aren't charging money, only souls. Just as QAnon only charged that from its followers and Trump.

Whether you call it the "Deep State" or "Global Cabal" doesn't matter. The magolithic devours the soul of whoever consumes it.

Here is the crucial lesson: QAnon did not give power to Trump and his followers for free. It did not provide a good reason to justify him. It destroyed millions of families, consumed millions of lives, led to the radicalization of millions, and created something we might call a "singularity."

All of it came at a cost: whoever consumes its magolithic corrupts their own soul by assimilating the soul of QAnon. Likewise, whoever consumes my magolithic may assimilate countless psychological tactics, but in the end, they will be corrupting their own soul.

I read through the entire KJV and NRSV versions cover to cover after a lifetime of being nonreligious, and also watched through the back catalog of a religious studies PhD on Youtube. All in all an interesting read in some places but mostly unimpressive and rather dry. You can see where the templates for better works of fiction came from. So in that regard we see further because we stand on the shoulders of giants, to borrow from Newton. But I am not really seeing its value as a source of dogmatic truth about the universe. It's a human document made and modified by human hands… anything else is cope.

>>25551
>Pagans never made stuff!
Romans ruled like 3/5 of the world under polytheism lol

>>25447
What version?

bable

>>25592
The bibble