/edu/ checkpoint Anonymous 17-07-23 11:23:53 No. 19860 [Last 50 Posts]
Everytime you visit /edu/, post in this thread. Tell us about what you're thinking about, what you're reading, an interesting thing you have learned today, anything! Just be sure to pop in and say hi.
Previous thread
>>>/leftypol_archive/580500 Archive of previous thread
https://archive.is/saN3S Excuse me coming through
A quick note on the video @ >>>/leftypol/1538283
Also [vid related] for archival purposes
Around the 29 minute mark Peterson criticizes Marx and Engel's for assuming that workers would magically become more productive once they took over.
This actually happened historically, most of the actually effective productivity tricks work places use now were developed by Stakhanovites.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/year-of-the-stakhanovite/year-of-the-stakhanovite-texts/stalin-at-the-conference-of-stakhanovites/ Reality has a Marxist bias
Anonymous 17-07-23 14:55:22 No. 19864
>>19863 Part of it is sheer practice.
Given your current reading list, jumping between them is fine
though Anonymous 17-07-23 16:31:31 No. 19865
Don't mind me just carting some copypasta in for later use " I'm going to very controversially say that, for all intents and purposes, if you are a communist, you have to support Russia. The only degree to which Russia is now fighting in Ukraine is to a degree that supports Communism. Of course we know that Russia isn't controlled by a communist party, we know communist ideology is not official in Russia, but the question of Russia is the ultimate litmus test of whether or not you take what we call Materialism seriously and develop it to its logical conclusion. A socialist mode of production is not just defined by whether or not socialist ideology is officially empowered. A socialist mode of production also entails materially socialist relations of production. These are not details about formalities of law or statehood or the ideologies which empower them, but elements of a qualitatively different mode of production. The idea that you can somehow revert back to capitalism from socialism is just as much as an absurdity as the idea that you can revert back to feudalism from capitalism, because a basic laws of history is that a mode of production is not reversible. You cannot regress from a given mode of production, including a from socialist mode of production to a capitalist one. It is, from a materialist of perspective, not possible. The real basis of the mode of production that exists specifically within Russia is all a relic of the communist past. There is no such thing as Russian modernity without the socialist paradigm of communism, and they have never moved past that. Even under Putin, you still have a profusely state-controlled economy, and to the extent that it is not state-owned and state-controlled its downstream from that. You also have an economy that was fundamentally intertwined with western finance capital. We're not talking about Russia transitioning back into a capitalist mode of production here, we're talking about a geopolitical power held by the West over Russia. Since the dissolution of the USSR, foreign capitalists from the West came into Russia and colonized it, colonizing the Russian economy and looted it without fundamentally changing or altering the basic infrastructure or relations of production that existed in the Soviet era. The veneer of a capitalistic economy is there, but, for example, the oil industry is a top-down, centrally-planned and state-owned segment of the economy. The side of Russia's economy that is private and open to the colonialism of the West is exactly that which is diminishing because of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine. Russia does not have a very strong financial capitalist class, and to the extent that it does, its one that is disloyal to Putin and more loyal to the network of City of London offshore banking. When Russia "abandoned communism", all they did was abandon the line of development of Russian modernity. Russia stopped developed developing of a modern economy. The Putin era has been characterized by a homeostasis of stability and only stability. Russia's future has to be communist in some sense. I have seen no evidence that any "post-communist" can pick off from its previous mode of development, succeed that, and go forward in a non-communist way. The Eastern European countries experience extreme brain drain, migrants fleeing the country causing demographic crises, as the basic meat and potatoes of their economy being neglected when they opened their doors to foreign financial colonialism. They are simply not developing their own economies. That is true for almost all of the ex-communist states. Communism is not just a matter of what ideology is in charge, its a matter for these non-western civilizations to be able to participate in any modern industrial development. Communism is the prerequisite for that capability. The second largest political party and largest opposition party in Russia is the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, with Zyuganov calling for a study of China in order to redeem and re-examine the Marxism-Leninism of old and return to following Communism while correcting the mistakes of the past. Zyuganov and Communist Party of the Russian Federation are at the vanguard of Russia's intervention into the Donbass in support of the people there, against NATO and against the West. You're knocking on an open door when you say that communists are not in power in Russia, because what Russia actually needs are those who can critique the shortcomings of the late Soviet Union while, at the same time, staying true to the basic continuity of progress that began in 1917. When you say "Russia is not communist", you're really saying that Russia has not made peace with its past. Russia has not picked off where the Soviet Union left off in terms of development, any future of Russian development will necessarily entail some kind of real reconciliation with the Soviet past, which means continuing the development that started with the Soviet Union which is not simply reversible. Real historical progress is something objective and there's no way to simply regress back into capitalism. So a "return to communism" really means, in the Russian context, an embracing of what worked and improving on what didn't work. The Soviet Union, despite numerous flaws, formed the basic foundations of modern Russia as a civilization as we know it, and its infrastructure and base economy has not fundamentally deviated from the Soviet era. Submitting to western geopolitics at a surface level is not the same as recreating a new capitalist mode of production, to the extent that Russia capitalist is merely to the extent that it has given grants and concessions to foreign financial institutions. What Russia is struggling with right now is a way to basically make sense of its own reality without just having to revert to the flawed and dogmatic form of Soviet Marxism-Leninism. Of course, there are some Orthodox or Tsarist LARPers who think that Putin is some new Tsar and that Russia returning to its pre-revolutionary state. This is absolutely false, however, there's nothing about modern Russia that bears the markings of its pre-revolutionary days. They simply take it for granted how much the Soviet era fundamentally and irreversibly changed Russian civilization. The Tsarist era was characterized by a handful of Germanized aristocrats and nobles lording over 90% of a country of illiterate and irrelevant peasants. That does not characterize Russia today, which is democratic in the sense that it includes and carries the will of major swaths of the population. Having some kind of political subjectivity or stake in the system wasn't true for the Tsarist era of Russia, which was essentially a form of western colonialism over 90% of the population in all functional intents and purposes. Even under Yeltsin, the structure of said colonialism was starkly different, and the Special Military Operation is fundamentally to the detriment of that. The SMO is something that was carried out for the sake of the Russian people. Putin did what he did because if he did not act, he would have no political future. Ukraine was planning on going into the Donbass, and for almost a decade Putin and those in the Russian state were trying to find some peaceful solution that would avoid any direct conflict by Russia without success. They had to do it, very few elements wanted to intervene in the Donbass at all. Even Putin did not want to intervene, preferring to maintain stability. Russia is not an expansionist power, their so-called "expansionism" is not something that can be explained in a materialist way, because its mode of production and economy which is based on the oil industry hinge upon stability: stability in oil prices, the flow of oil, revenues, etc. If there is a Russian ruling class that is clearly intelligible and can be correctly described, it can only be one that would be greatly upset by any kind of "expansionism" into the Donbass, with drastic changes to their desired stability. Right now, what you're seeing with the Special Military Operation is that the drive of Russian history is outpacing the Russian status-quo. This is exactly the type of opportunity that Russian communists have been predicting for a very long time now. To be a communist in the present situation means to unwaveringly support a tripling down on the SMO, fully aligning with the Russian forces liberating the Donbass. Its very simple, if you are a communist, you have an obligation to support Russia. "
Anonymous 06-08-23 16:59:51 No. 20134
>>19860 Been thinkin' bout plants. Also, I listened to series 3 of Blowback not too long ago, and it made me quite sad. S. Korea had their soverignity stolen from them by the USA, and they have now been browbeaten into thinking that the North is their mortal enemy.
I also read this article about the history of Taekwondo, and learned that it is intrinsically linked with the politics of the South and the North. I also learned that the version we're taught in the West is the sanitised version, and that the "original" version is still taught in the DPRK.
>Today in North Korea you can still see army commandos practicing “the original form of Taekwondo.” You might even see them practice the final form Choi Hong Hee ever designed, Juche. https://www.midwesternmarx.com/articles/when-taekwondo-ruled-the-world-by-jay Anonymous 17-08-23 10:36:21 No. 20181
>>20173 I haven't forgotten this, you're asking about Stalin's resignation attempts.
As a related sidenote, Stalin's attempts to cancel his birthday celebrations were met with a firm "it is not about you" for a sense of it.
In regards to the yootoob video attached; I have no words.
Anonymous 29-08-23 06:36:03 No. 20392
<However, traditional Marxism was often satisfied with Marx’s theory of surplus value and exploitation in Capital , volume I. This served as ‘proof’ of the illegitimate domination of the bourgeoisie and the legitimacy of proletarian revolution. His theory of crisis in volumes II and III were likewise understood as a ‘proof ’ of the inevitability of capitalism’s collapse. Capital was celebrated as a socialist ‘bible’ to ground both the legitimacy and the necessity of socialism, but such a reading is not compelling today and the failure of traditional Marxism is not necessarily a negative thing to lament. The end of the Cold War also opened up new possibilities for rereading Marx. What characterizes this ‘new reading of Marx’ (neue Marx-Lektüre ) compared with traditional Marxism is an honest acknowledgement of the incompleteness of his system of political economy. Scholars started to investigate his economic manuscripts, letters, and even notebooks more carefully (Dellheim and Otto Wolf 2018). They demonstrate that although volumes II and III of Capital were not completed during Marx’s lifetime, his critique of capitalism did deepen after the publication of volume I. However, the unfinished character of Marx’s critique of political economy has been underestimated in the past because it became invisible in Engels’s edition of Capital . Engels, editing Marx’s manuscripts after his death, strove to establish ‘Marxism’ as a doctrine to mobilize the working class. He tended to overemphasize the systematic character of Capital so that it could provide a universal ‘worldview’ for the working class. From Marx in the Anthropocene (2022) by Kohei Sato, page 175. It is the follow-up to Karl Marx's Ecosocialism . While critical of western chauvinism, Sato is himself ultra-dismissive of the experience in the eastern block, a few negative remarks here and there (following western lefty academic "common sense") and that's it. Lenin is not a source for anything, but some anglo/burger academic randos are. Sato argues against pro-growth types, and he does that by equating economic growth with growth in a raw physical sense (think so many tons of steel produced etc.) and that he equates with more pollution. Is more pollution actually necessary for growth? Suppose person-miles traveled increase by 10 % while there is a per-mile reduction of pollution in personal travel of 20 %, that would be a counter-example (I admit a fictional example is not the best, read on please, a better one is coming up soon). Mainstream GDP measures take inflation into account and inflation measures do take quality of consumer goods into account (the increased processing power of computer chips for example, which certainly is not a development coupled with proportional increase in energy usage by computers). The fans of growth, whether radical or mainstream, are not quite as dim as Sato makes them appear.
Anonymous 03-09-23 13:29:01 No. 20444
Slavoj Zizek - The Empty Gesture, The Mobius Strip, And The Pointe De Capiton
alt:
https://piped.video/watch?v=qKlIfax5Te0 Anonymous 17-09-23 00:53:22 No. 20539
Finished Sleep: A Very Short Introduction by Steven W. Lockley and Russell G. Foster (2012). Most interesting bits:<In a large prospective Dutch study, dementia patients in care homes where the indoor lighting was simply increased to about 1,000 lux from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. (compared to standard lighting at about 300 lux) exhibited a significant slowing in the rate of cognitive decline, improved day-to-day functioning, less depression, and better sleep. These improvements were equivalent to those obtained with prescription medication therapy. <In the US, studies have shown that delaying school start times by as little as 30–90 minutes can improve student sleep duration and quality, academic performance, absenteeism and lateness rates, mood, alertness, and health. A one-hour change was also shown to reduce the rate of automobile crashes in 17–18-year-olds by 17%. Contrary to many expectations, later school start times do not lead to later bedtimes – bedtime remains constant and sleep duration increases – reflecting the biological basis of the problem. <About three-quarters of the population have a circadian clock that naturally delays (has a period slightly longer than 24 hours), which means that they have to advance their clock each day to become synchronized (…) In 1995, US researchers analysed baseball results based on the direction of travel of the visiting teams. They hypothesized that teams travelling west, whose players would on average be shifting in the same direction as their body clock, would be more successful than teams travelling east, the majority of whom would be going against their natural clock time.Their theory was confirmed. When the visiting team travelled west, ‘with’ their body clock, they won 44% of the games. When the visiting team travelled east, ‘against’ their body clock, they won only 37% of their games. Not travelling was best– the visiting team won 46% of games when they did not cross time zones (gamblers take note!).
Anonymous 31-10-23 19:55:54 No. 20890
>>20889 That's good anon. Something is better than nothing too.
What type of books or advice are you looking for? I'm not sure such a thing exists tbh.
Anonymous 31-10-23 20:01:59 No. 20892
>>20889 Honestly, a lot of working in big institutions is getting good at noticing how things operate. Just learn and talk to as much people as you can without impeding your work. Ask for a shit ton of help. Never stop asking for help, even from people "below" you. Always be keen on helping people and listening. Avoid drama or getting into fights. Always try to be in good graces with everyone. Avoid getting forced to choose a team in a petty squabble. Give credit to others. Appreciate your coworkers.
Everything else you'll learn on the job.
Another thing, "rules" and processes can always be overruled. Of course don't do illegal shit but I mean a lot of "rigid" processes are actually not rigid at all and pulling the right strings means you can override it or avoid it.
Anonymous 31-10-23 20:20:21 No. 20894
>>20892 >>20893 I suppose that's reassuring. I'm pretty good at the awkwardly charming and sharing glory routine, it's part of the reason I got the job. The courts' staff like me. I guess I've just gone a little feral working on my own for the past year. Haven't worked in an office with more than 2 people in almost 7 years. It'll be strange to work along side other people and be part of a bigger whole.
Also I meant Graeber's The Utopia of Rules, not BS jobs. But BS jobs is a fun one. RIP. Miss that lil' guy like you wouldn't believe.
Anonymous 27-12-23 23:45:44 No. 21222
As I finish the last page of 31 Steps to a Learn a New Language – Fun, Fast & Easy Steps Learn Any New & Foreign Language You Want. This Ultimate Guide Will Help You to Become Fluent With Joy an Strategy – 31 Steps to Learn Smarter – Smart Steps to Get Your Brain Up to Speed. Improve Your Life by Mastering Your Mind and Impress Everybody – Master Learning Box (2015) by Philip Vang I realize that the whole thing was written like email spam ☹ Why even read this? I saw an intriguing disclaimer at the beginning:<The authors, editors, and publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that any drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accordance with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research blahblahblah Sadly, no advice about mind doping is to be found in this work, which is made of two parts as you might have guessed from the title, though the order is the other way around. This is a typical sentence:<Paranormal and spiritual teachings aside, meditation is a very basic way to unleash the best function of your brain in a very scientific way. The book got some science in it. If a claim doesn't convince you, the book got sources like "an ongoing British study". So, what are the most important steps for an strategy to a learn a new language? The author knows many: meditating, breathing techniques, yoga (yes, these are three separate steps), jogging, laughing exercises, playing video games, masturbation, having breakfast just to name a few. I'm sure most people are already doing some of these, but if you want to do them all, this will take several hours of your day; and that's just the 31 steps to get ready for language learning without doing it yet. My favorite steps from the other set directly related to language learning are "Step 27: Be Willing to Ask Questions" and "Step 28: Be Willing to Ask Questions".
Anonymous 07-01-24 03:14:50 No. 21363
>>21362 The Knowledge Corrupt
e rs
Anonymous 11-02-24 18:02:02 No. 21574
>>20865 Belated self-(You): Bonnell's
Roots of Rebellion seems to be the closest source I could find to this topic so far. If anyone has any further reading recs, do tell.
Anonymous 02-03-24 13:53:35 No. 21642
Finished the Alan Turing biography by Andrew Hodges. A harrowing tale of the dangers of modern technology, because I got an e-ink device and I usually don't display the page number to have more screen real-estate. I only bothered to check after many hours in already and to my horror realized it's over a thousand e-ink pages (in paper form it's below that, but still). It is easily five times longer than it needs to be. If only I had so much as glanced at the dead-tree version, I would have immediately decided against reading it. I just can't abandon a book in the middle and this took me forever. So you have an interest in computing history and fighting Nazis? Would you like poetry with that, poetry by some dude who was fascinated by the smell of his own armpits? Well, guess what, every chapter has that stuff as an introduction. The author took any opportunity to insert a reference to Alice in Wonderland or the Wizard of Oz and fucking Gödel and never asked himself if he should. Was he paid by volume of output? This thing is chronological and it will shock you how many pages still lie ahead after World War II. Here is a representative section, paraphrased from memory:<Alan Turing was sitting at his desk in Britain while being homosexual and he (Alan, not Alice in Wonderland) was frustrated by the complex signals of society he had to decrypt like the Nazi codes (remember those!) and he had to hide his homosexuality (he was gay), so to his colleagues he was a, ahem… 🤔 one could even say: an ENIGMA (I am very smart) blahblahblah
7ko 02-03-24 15:29:46 No. 21643
To stride anew?
Anyways it turns out the glowies might've killed Paul Robeson, and you mayyyyybe want to reconsider the efficacy of the "meds".
https://mronline.org/2024/02/27/according-to-his-son-civil-rights-icon-paul-robeson-was-a-victim-of-cias-mk-ultra/ Anonymous 03-03-24 06:25:16 No. 21644
Read
On the Abolition of All Political Parties by Simone Weil (1943). There just was an episode about that text on the "You Can't Win" podcast and since it was a PREMIUM episode for paypigs and the hosts are much dumber than I am, I figured why not read it myself instead of listening to these dweebs yappering about it.
https://libcom.org/article/abolition-all-political-parties-simone-weil It also got a preface by the translator and another essay at the end about how great Simone Weil was, which I guess got added because you certainly don't get that impression of greatness from her essay. Here is a sentence from it:
<How many times, in Germany in 1932, might a Communist and a Nazi conversing in the street have been struck by a sort of mental vertigo on discovering that they were in complete agreement on all issues! Her and her two fanboys are in the anti-"totalitarian" camp, you see. It's a shame how anemic this piece is because there is certainly something to the idea that a party apparatus suppresses debate and honesty. When it comes to how to do away with parties she has nothing else than this:
<At election time, if contributors to a journal are political candidates, it should be forbidden for them to invoke their connection with the journal, and it should be forbidden for the journal to endorse their candidacy, to support it directly or indirectly, or even to mention it. Any ‘Association of the friends’ of this sort of journal should be forbidden. If any journal were ever to prevent its contributors from writing for other publications, it should be forced to close. <All this would require a complete set of press regulations, making it impossible for dishonourable publications to carry on with their activity, since none would wish to be associated with them. <Whenever a circle of ideas and debate would be tempted to crystallise and create a formal membership, the attempt should be repressed by law and punished. Well then, how to conduct elections without parties? She got nothing, but there are several ways.
1. We could take the concept of term limits to the next level: Instead of parties, there could be election groups with registered members and there could be regulations for
-how long you can be a member of an election group and then you have to take a time-out for a couple decades
-expiration dates for election groups themselves
-a limit on the proportion of members of the new election group who are from the same old election group (say 1/10)
-a minimum proportion of people with no prior membership in any election group for a new election group (say 2/3)
2. We could use voting systems without party lists like STV or approval with reweighting.
3. We could do away with elections and use sortition.
Glowing Margaret Thatcher 10-03-24 21:12:44 No. 21714
>>21712 So basically, enshrine certain forms of exploitation and do nothing about them. Very cool.
Sass aside, which forms of exploitation would you consider unavoidable and therefore acceptable?
Anonymous 14-03-24 13:33:16 No. 21727
<Marx Saw Capitalisms Doom With Unerring Accuracy Marx identified the tendency of capitalism to try and cut out the actual production of commodities in Volume 2 of Capital. In that work he (with a supplementary note by Engels) stated the following on page 137 of that work.
>‘It is precisely because the money form of value is its independent and palpable form of appearance that the circulation for <…<M which starts and finished with actual money expresses money making, the driving motive of capitalist production, most palpably. The production process appears simply as an unavoidable middle term, a necessary evil for the purpose of money making. This explains why all nations characterised by the capitalist mode of production are periodically seized by fits of giddiness in which they try to accomplish he money making without the mediation of the production process.’ >What this tells us is that even in its earliest stages, in fact at its height in terms of British industrial capitalism, the tendency to look to cut out the production process and just simply move from money to money is already an integral feature of the system. Combine this with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and you have the explanation of why it is that the race for a division of the world between the European colonial powers kicks off in the 1880s. By that stage Britain was losing ground badly to both the USA and the unified Germany. In fact Britain was being out innovated by US industrial capitalism by the 1850s. Why is this? There have been a myriad of explanations of this given by bourgeois academics over the last 150 years but the biggest two reasons are the two factors Marx outlined. To actually compete with US and German industrial capitalism would have taken a giant investment in updating the means of production and an even greater one into research and development. The British ruling class of course went for another option which is seize as many areas of the world as possible in order that they could hyper exploit the labour and natural resources there. Hence why the scramble for Africa hits at the end of the 19th century when the British hit the imperialist stage along with the (industrially weaker) French with the Germans rapidly joining the struggle. >What does this mean for our modern imperialism in the form of the US and its block of vassals? In practical terms it means that the US imperialists followed the exact same path as their British predecessors in terms of responding to a crisis of profitability by deindustrialising and increasing the export of capital. I admit that I underestimated how far gone the US ruling class truly are and also how strong the tendency towards cutting out production, minimising actual investment, corrupt short term practices such as stock buy backs really is. The fact that they are unable, even when faced with losing the war in Ukraine and getting overpowered by China, to actually change course is surprising in some ways. These tendencies that were identified by Marx now absolutely dominate the ruling classes of all the US block nations. To reverse them would take a drastic, genuinely Bonapartist system being introduced if capitalism is to stand a chance of surviving. As things stand it looks like the dominant tendency within the US ruling class will remain that of “cashing out”, in other words squeezing out as much profit as they can while they can and not caring about much else. This is why all decisions taken in the US political system appear to be ridiculously short term because they are reflecting the underlying tendency of the ruling class to grab a quick profit, even by means of getting bailed out by the central bank, then cashing out. >To actually turn this around, to really get meaningful investment and updated means of production put in place the US would have to put in place a system that borrows from the Chinese. They’d have to put in place a system where the capitalist class is, effectively, removed from political power and is told “use it or lose” it in terms of its capital. This won’t work though as the only reason the Chinese are able to exercise political control over the domestic capitalist class is because they have already had a revolution that removed the power of the old, comprador bourgeoisie. The US is at the apex of the imperialist system and if they tried to do such a thing it’d cause all kinds of rebellion from the bourgeois which will happily fund destructive, reactionary political tendencies in order to hang onto its loot. >It is of course possible that a new balance of class forces will emerge inside the USA that will compel the more far sighted bourgeois to actually make some changes. At this stage though I cannot see this happening what seems to be favoured is just finding a way to keep the looting going for another few years. These tendencies are what will doom imperialism. Here then we must return to the “socialism or barbarism” question because the bourgeoisie will happily embrace barbarism to defend their parasitism. In order to overcome this rotting system the communists will have to develop an understanding of how truly far gone it is.https://marxengelsinstitute.org/2023/12/10/an-end-long-predicted/ Anonymous 15-03-24 06:51:52 No. 21734
>>21722 Try writing out notes to what you read, then simplify them into concepts and shorthand. Most stuff is just filler anyway, so skimming is allowed.
Also, most people in the west dont even read any non-fiction, so you are already more educated than the majority who just listen to podcasts.
Anonymous 17-03-24 06:46:12 No. 21742
Skimming through Beyond Dispute by Stafford Beer and colleagues (1994). Beer is as pompous as Stephen Wolfram without having the math chops. This is about organizing people into discussion groups using the geometry of an icosahedron (20-sided die) as THE GOLD STANDARD and then there is a lot of babbling about psychology, Condorcet cycles (without calling them that), world citizenship, a (dumb) proposal for package sizes, and uuh Chakras. So what's the deal with the icosahedron: The idea is to organize people into groups with discussion topics (one group got one topic, an individual is in more than one group) and to avoid hierarchy of people and hierarchy of topics. What logically follows from the hierarchy avoidance is that the organizational chart for this must be highly symmetric, which is true of this particular geometric shape, but also others. A person is represented by an edge, a group & and its topic is represented by a corner, so a person is in two groups. Why not instead picture a 12-sided die as a mini planet of office dorks sitting at hexagonal tables, each table being a discussion group and at each corner sits a person in a chair rotating between three tables? Well, then two of the same dorks would be meeting in two discussion groups. In Beer's scheme, you meet completely different sets of people in your discussion groups, which is a good thing if you want many direct connections to other people in the org. A person actually visits more than two groups, by also being assigned the role of critic for two other groups (these are far away points from the two groups you are a "proper member" of). Some voting procedures are presented that are crummy, but not really the core of the proposal, which is that beautiful shape. Am I really sold on that shape? Not quite, but I strongly agree with the emphasis on making links to many other people direct or short (one person between).
Anonymous 17-03-24 17:19:06 No. 21749
>>21742 (me)
>Why not instead picture a 12-sided die as a mini planet of office dorks sitting at hexagonal tables *pentagonal tables
Glownonymous 30-03-24 02:59:27 No. 21822
>>21644 omg she criticizes anti-factionalism of parties and her solution is to ban people to form factions… but for all society. Is this dialectics?
>>21670 Is this where Zizek gets his joke about the vague soviet definition of kulaks? lol
As far as the claim (well, which claim? I'm going with the last, that many other peasants were disaffected), with no knowledge of this specifically it does seem right when looking at feudal/rural-patriarchal relations in general. Social views are not only formed by class but also familial ties and tradition, especially in an especially traditional and family oriented social structure.
>>21714 Plants. I think it's okay to determine where a plant lives, and control some of the conditions of its life, and then harvest it. It's not like this is any different from its natural condition, so it's not like we have made its potential lot worse.
jk, i don't care about exploitation in general, i care about exploitation that is harmful to me and my loved ones [expansive], or which cause diffuse harm to all of society or the environment and can be assumed to impact us all. Otherwise, why care? To me communism is a deeply particular philosophy, rather than universal. Its universalism is imo a caricature given of it by conservatives who just don't see how materially connected all of our struggles are Anonymous 09-04-24 20:07:09 No. 21880
>>21547 There's an article in
City & State New York that attempts to summarize relevant data up to 2018 that I found later, if nothing else.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2018/09/the-battle-for-hudson-yards/178151/ Anonymous 25-04-24 07:58:31 No. 22001
Finished Marx and Marxism by Gregory Claeys (2018). This guy is apparently a distinguished professor and expert on the history of political thought. I would have never guessed that from reading this. It seems like an even-handed take at first with direct references, but as it goes on, outrageous quotes by Lenin, Stalin, Mao pile up and the sources turn out to be spooky western cold warriors. Or there is no source at all like when he says that Marx claimed us proles to be particularly<virtuous or that Wilhelm Reich<was threatened with execution by some communists for introducing these issues Meaning "these issues":<the proletariat’s suppressed sexual urges prevented it from achieving political consciousness. So this Reich guy is important enough to mention, and the usual lot of Frankfurt school plonkers. Who doesn't make the cut? There is no Strumilin, no Kantorovich, no Piero Sraffa. The author talks in dismissive tone of<the weaknesses in Marx’s economics but almost nowhere describes the economics of Marx, never mind some actual criticism. There is nothing here on the transformation problem , despite the length of this book. A few sentences on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is all you will get here (without even relating that to organic composition of capital). For the most part, he doesn't really criticize, but gestures that he is about to do criticism, like he "criticizes" Marx for his<‘scientific’ nature of the theory of surplus value, while excluding other theories of exploitation and then… no alternative theory of exploitation follows after this. He doesn't care to make an actual argument for his positions. Just assert, assert, assert. What is his realistic alternative to Marxism?<Pleas for a universal basic income become increasingly plausible as we move towards both more skeletal welfare systems and a persistent shortage of well-paid jobs. Uneducated person that I am, my guess would be that an establishment that is hostile towards decent welfare is also hostile to the idea of a guaranteed basic income, and will do no more than copy the name to mislabel a policy (meaning you are ✌guaranteed✌ the ✌universal✌ income as long as no exception clause is triggered).
Acid-Maoist 01-05-24 18:26:10 No. 22040
>>19860 I've been reading Caroline Elkins' book Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire recently, and I thought I'd talk about it a bit. No PDF or Epub, because I have it in hardback.
The book is actually just as much a history of liberalism as a history of the British Empire, and it's fascinating seeing how the liberal mindset came into existence. Reading the examples from the book, you can really see where the paternalistic British liberal originated, with the idea that we must save the global south from themselves. Hence, African leaders famously complaining about how when China turns up they get a power plant, and when Britain turns up they get a lecture; it was the same back then, but Britain actually had the hard power to back up their rhetoric.
It also explains how Britain's use of force changed between the 18th and 20th centuries, with Britain preferring a "hands-off" approach in the 19th century which gradually failed as Germany, the USA, and the Russian Empire began to industrialise and compete for territory (there's an interesting parallel with America and China in the 21st century, too). Occasionally news of some atrocity that was comitted by the British Army (or one of the private companies they got to manage the colonies, such as the East India Company or the Royal Africa Company) would reach home, and there would inevitably be debates about it in parliament- which usually ended with the crimes being somehow justified and then forgotten about, and occasionally with the perpetrators turned into heroes (the 1857 Indian rebellion and the 1865 Morant Bay rebellion are two good example from the book).
The book isn't specifically Marxist, but is still well worth reading from what I've seen so far.
Anonymous 09-05-24 10:41:43 No. 22071
Finished The Charisma Myth by Olivia Fox Cabane (2012). The myth is that people just are just naturally endowed with charisma or not and the book is about developing your charisma. Here is a typical excerpt:<Elon Musk, cofounder of PayPal and current CEO of Tesla Motors, embodies focus charisma. As he’ll tell you himself, Musk is very much an introvert. In Tesla’s open office space, his nearly empty desk is in the far right corner, two huge monitors arranged to create a cocoon, shielding him from the rest of the office. <However, when he emerges from behind the screens, he is fully present and fully focused. You can feel the intensity of his attention, how keenly he listens to and absorbs everything you say. And he doesn’t need to say a word to show you that he understands you: his nonverbal body language makes you feel completely listened to and understood. (You’ll learn the secrets to this kind of listening in chapter 8.) <Focus charisma is primarily based on a perception of presence. It gives people the feeling that you are fully present with them, listening to them and absorbing what they say. Focus charisma makes people feel heard, listened to, and understood. Don’t underestimate this kind of charisma; it can be surprisingly powerful. <Focus charisma can be highly effective in business. One executive who has worked closely with Bill Gates told me: <Most people think of charisma as people who are larger than life, who command a room with an over-the-top personality. But despite his unassuming appearance, being slight in build and looking like the stereotypical geek, Bill does command the room; his presence is immediately felt. If your definition of charisma is that when you walk into a room all eyes are on you, then Bill has it. If it’s that quality that draws people toward you and makes them want to listen to what you have to say, then Bill has that, too. Other examples of charisma the author brings up are George W. Bush (visionary charisma type) and Madonna (doesn't say type). I don't know about you, but if someone IRL told me earnestly that I'm like any of those people I'd probably hang myself. Maybe developing charisma isn't for me :/
Glownonymous 11-05-24 01:03:11 No. 22083
>>22071 It's weird that the author seems to only pick people who naturally would have all eyes on them (managers/owners, performers, politicians) as having charisma that draws people to them?? The only one who makes sense here
>>22081 is Mao, since his political praxis consisted of listening to people. But still… leader of a country.
Anonymous 11-05-24 21:59:44 No. 22095
I can't remember the thread in which I read the post, but for some reason an online media group had moved to quote a 19 year old 'book-fan' of Dostoyevsky's literature, in order to hear from her an understanding of the draw among young people to his works. The language that the individual uses in their explanation is near-Orwellian. Orwell himself and his books are cliches for comparisons, but in this instance the description is absolutely fucking apt. Not just in the literative sense of how specific phrases of slang have gained currency and are used with a reflexive ironic concession, but in the total operation of their language and the manner in which it unconsciously reproduces the social relations that are combinant in her understanding, and the self-perpetuation of the ideology which sustains it. If I had the post before me I'd quote it so I could break each sentence down piece by piece, but for the general effect, it is as though the political consciousness which has gained ascendency among youth is not only perfectly amicable to, but directly a construct of the form of, the logic of capital. Missing the depth of it but putting it to a term, it is 'HR therapy speak'; bourgeois psychology which utlizies 'trauma' as the central manifold in its discourse which constructs meaning for individuals. The prevelance of this explanation is like a fucking disease, not in the sense of this specific case, but the ascension of this form of psychology, which has launched itself with a religious zeal in converting the subjects it comes into contact with, with a new socially modality. It is not even a psychology proper. In its general shape it is an overarching ideology, which is the result of the collective social processes at play in the division of wealth in western society and their transformation under the revolutionary pressure inherent in the proliferation of capital. The worst of it is that in its extremity it licenses a form of vitriol which can only be compared to the propaganda at play in antisemitism. I'm not over-stating this; in the quote, the individual annihilates the boundary of human subjectivity through an explicit statement where she claims that femininity is the conditional quality to human existence. She oblates masculinity with violence and in so doing flattens men into the same category as with which the Nazi percieves the Jew. This absolute fucking poverty in this rational perception is endemic. Individuals who set out to defend an asbtract cauase of the new form of rights which have emerged over the last few years do so by obliterating the real material dimension of human existence. The depth of human psychology in Freud which was expounded over a century ago has been burried, like Marx's writings, to the preservation of academic anarchronisms. These convulsions which are simply revolutionising social subjectivity into a more pliable consumerist existentiality are being waged by the worst of all sychophants. The individual's rational logic is both simple and clear in its original purpose: they wished to paint Dostoyevsky's works as the result of his troubled and turbulent emotional life (hoping most likely in the process to project their own self-image as someone who is learned). What's embarassing is that it just becomes a display of the presiding tectonics of both their own internal and external reality, the two being sufficently confused that they essentially end up back where they have started. What's absolutely painful is that, even among those who are literate, this is the new standard: a politically castrated subject who with absolutely no valid self-reflection.
Glownonymous 16-05-24 00:51:48 No. 22113
>>22085 I just finished Cecelia Bobrovskaya's memoirs, and she describes Lenin as an amazing listener (and Plekhanov, too, in passing - she was inspired by how he took interest in the minutia of practical work)
I think it's just inherent to communist work that we need to be good listeners. Still, my skepticism at the potentially circular methodology of the work stands lol
Glownonymous 16-05-24 01:02:02 No. 22114
>>22113 (me)
to review the book: very funny, very human. I think it would be a fun read even to non-communists.
Really the only practical lesson I learned from it is that the semi-committed, spineless, well-off intellectual types served a very important function, by stitching back together local socialist groups after big busts. They were above suspicion and kept themselves legal, so they would be there when everyone else was in jail or scattered. It really puts weight behind Lenin's exhortations to go to
all classes to spread the ideas and look for comrades. Even though the illegal socialists engaged in constant practical work were suspicious of the strictly legal semi-comrades, they served a purpose in being only somewhat connected to the more serious activity.
Anonymous 25-05-24 17:28:04 No. 22159
Finished Two Texts for Defining the Communist Programme by L. L. Men (1986). For LLM, socialism requires labour vouchers as described in Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx and Anti-Dühring by Engels, as well as democratic bottom-up voting with the right to recall as in the Paris Commune. By that standard, the USSR was not socialist at any point. Was the USSR moving towards socialism? For LLM it is clear that the Bolsheviks stopped pushing in a socialist direction before the NEP even. LLM shows some awful statements by Lenin and even worse ones by Trotsky, but does not accuse the Bolsheviks of conspiring against the working class from beginning. In general, conscious intention of individuals or groups do not play a big role in the author's picture of history. LLM is also very critical of basically everybody from the Workers' Opposition to the Kronstadt Sailors, anarchists, and various grouplets like the SPGB. I found an interesting reference to The Bolshevik Revolution 1917–1923 Volume 2 by E. H. Carr (1952), referring to discussion about abolishing money: (page 267)<In January 1920 the third All-Russian Congress of Councils of National Economy at length accepted a thesis which declared that, "in view of the excessive instability of the monetary unit and unit of account (the ruble) ", it was desirable to establish a new unit of economic accountancy " adopting as a basis of measurement the unit of labour ".[1] This proposal was referred to a commission. It occupied for many months the best economic brains of the country; and the term "labour unit" became familiar enough to be known by a current abbreviation as tred (trudovaya edinitsa ). <[1]Quoted in L. N. Yurovsky, Currency Problems and Policy of the Soviet Union (1925), p. 34; it was not included in the published resolutions of the congress. (page 268)<None of several schemes for replacing money by tred or by some other unit had won acceptance when the introduction of NEP caused the whole project to be relegated once more to the realms of academic speculation.[1] <[1]The discussion occupied an enormous place in the economic literature of 1920 and the first month of 1921; a rival to tred was propounded in the form of a "unit of energy" (ened ). A detailed study of the discussion would have some theoretical interest, but it had little or no influence on future developments. It was influenced by two works of the German economist Otto Neurath which were much studied by Soviet writera of the period: Durch die Kriegswirtschaft zur Naturalwirtschaft (Munich, 1919), and Von der nächsten und übernächsten Zukunft (Jena, 1920).
Anonymous 11-06-24 22:58:07 No. 22284
Finished I've Been Thinking , the 2023 autobiography by the materialist philosopher (though not Marxist) Daniel C. Dennett (born in 1942, died in 2024). A massive cast flashes by, mostly academics, but also Silicon Valley types and even Hollywood. Early on, Dennett says:<[John] Searle’s world is full of philosophical nincompoops; mine is full of philosophers who are learned, intelligent, hard-working but often self-defeating presenters of their best ideas. Why would anybody want to be a philosopher if philosophers in general were as stupid as Searle seems to think? (Sir Karl Popper is another philosopher whose low opinion of those who disagreed with him has made me wonder how he could stand being a philosopher.) A significant part of what follows is cringe anecdotes about his colleagues. (I especially like the bit where he asks himself whether he should openly tell another philosopher about his atrocious sense of fashion and decides against it, so to not make an embarrassing scene for that guy, naming him so people from all continents will know about that guy's atrocious sense of fashion a hundred years from now.) If you can't decide on what to read and are bad at concentrating, this book is for you. The chapters are short and the topics change between shooting documentaries, dabbling in music and sculpture, sailing, farming, and trips all over the world. I'm green with envy. It's an entertaining book for sure, but did I get wiser? He drops tons of references to interesting stuff. I think for wisdom I'll better take up his collection of handy analogies and fallacies (Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking ). Hypocrisy: Dennett claims religion is mumbo jumbo, yet he talks about meeting the Antichrist at the TED brain-trust lunch . If you care to know what I mean by that, you can find the book on libgen.
Anonymous 29-06-24 21:13:20 No. 22367
>>22366 Yes, Spengler is a bullshitter. His scheme is arbitrary and there are countless counter-examples to any grand tendency or principle he claims, and his stuff is riddled with errors. (I haven't read Spengler, but his annihilation:
Anti-Spengler by Otto Neurath. Available in German as part of
Otto Neurath - gesammelte Philosophische und methodologische Schriften. Band 1 .)
Glownonymous 01-07-24 19:20:55 No. 22380
>>22347 tech sector in general functions largely in the rent sphere, because of IP
But also in general monopolies form out of competition as smaller firms fail to be sufficiently profitable. You'd expect this kind of monopoly firm to have lower margins. Once this happens, monopolies can raise prices to increase margins, but what this is in effect is lowering of the price of money of the whole economy, i.e. reducing wages. In this case consumption suffers and what prevails is necessities. Land rents, utilities, and food (also priced based on land rents) are the most profitable. We see empirically a shift in the economy for a while now in the US e.g. first away from industry, then away even from commerce, to finance, (tech), and land rent. In terms of both top companies, sectors leading gdp growth, and overall share of profits. So there's a long-term trend away from capitalist profits towards rent, as capital burdens production rather than promotes it. Anyways tech is tied heavily with finance and IP rents (and also state intervention and military needs) and so is doing relatively well. I'd see it in that light. Also expect more state expenditure as surplus value with nowhere to go builds up. So again, military spending, infrastructure (lol if we're lucky), state investment and buyouts, etc.
Anonymous 09-07-24 14:46:15 No. 22444
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power >by Shoshana Zuboff published in 2019. The book explores the emergence of a new economic order driven by the collection and commodification of personal data by tech companies. <Core Thesis: Zuboff argues that surveillance capitalism is a novel form of capitalism that monetizes data acquired through surveillance. Companies like Google, Facebook, and others extract vast amounts of personal data from users, often without explicit consent, to predict and influence behavior for profit. <Key Concepts: - Behavioral Surplus: Data collected from users' online activities, which goes beyond what is necessary to improve services. This surplus is then analyzed to predict future behavior. - Predictive Products: The processed data is used to create predictive products, which are sold to advertisers and other businesses. These products forecast users' behavior, preferences, and actions. - Instrumentarian Power: Unlike totalitarian power that seeks total control, instrumentarian power aims to shape and modify behavior subtly through the manipulation of digital environments. <Mechanisms: - Data Extraction: Companies gather data from a wide range of sources, including online interactions, location tracking, and even offline activities. - Analysis and Prediction: Advanced algorithms and machine learning models analyze this data to identify patterns and predict future behavior. - Behavioral Modification: Insights gained from data analysis are used to nudge users towards certain behaviors, often through personalized advertisements, recommendations, and other forms of influence. <Implications: Zuboff raises concerns about privacy, autonomy, and democracy. She warns that surveillance capitalism erodes individual freedoms and democratic processes by enabling unprecedented levels of monitoring and control over individuals. <The information produced through surveillance capitalism is utilized primarily for: - Targeted Advertising: Personalized ads based on user data to increase the likelihood of engagement and sales. - Market Research: Insights from data help companies understand consumer behavior, preferences, and trends. - Product Development: Data-driven insights guide the development of new products and services tailored to user needs and behaviors. -Behavioral Influence: Companies use data to design environments and experiences that subtly guide user decisions and actions, enhancing engagement and profitability. In summary, "Surveillance Capitalism" delves into the transformation of personal data into a lucrative commodity, with profound consequences for privacy, freedom, and societal norms.
Anonymous 11-07-24 19:31:52 No. 22462
I've read most of "Four Thousand Weeks" which, I think, helped me a lot in fighting my perfectionism and reading more regularily. Before reading this book I was always upset about my low understanding or distracted by the facts that various books can give me different perspectives on the subjects I am reading about. Now whenever I'm anxious about productivity I try to tell myself that nothing I do is perfect anyway and I can't fully control my attention/time. Anyway, I decided to try to set a 3 hours goal for studying of whatever general subject I have in mind everyday. As a part of that, I'm following the readings and lectures from the Anwar Shaikhs course about Historical Foundations of Political Economy (See attached). I've just finished reading the selections and comments on economists before Adam Smith that were selected and commented on by Robert Heilbroner. Before that I was reading the Robert Heilbroner's book about history of economic thought, although I finished with Karl Marx, since later chapters are not relevant to the subject. I'm still anxious and at times I can't help thinking about taking another book just to get another perspective (The issue with that thinking in my case is that it's obsessive thinking that comes up basically all the time, so after accepting this thought I'll just struggle with it when dealing with the next book), and despite reading the chapters about the Turgot and Quesnay two times and leaving a lot of notes I'm not sure how I'm faring with understading the subject. I cannot accept that I still have lots of material to read before I'll get some bird's eye view with what I'm dealing with on any deeper than superficial level. Still, what I've read so far was interesting. I've gotten a good sense of connection between the the historical reality and the economic thought of major PolEcon heads, and some major parts of their thought (Heilbroner in his history focuses mostly on the big points, so to speak, of economic ideas). So I've learned a little about the various ideas of technological innovation according to Smith, Ricardo and Marx. I've learned about the problems of economic growth and population and so on. As a note, I can say that Heilbroner gave me quite a good explanation of the idea of a falling rate of profit, so that was useful since I didn't really get it earlier. I think that Heilbroner is a good intro to economy from a popular perspective, although he offers only a very cursory and general view for a layman. From the other book I've learned more facts (Although it's mostly just Heilbroner narrating the history with quotations, without any other references. I'm basically taking Heilbroner and Shaikh's recommendation on their word here) about pre-modern economy, and about evolution of the pre-Smith economic thought through original writings. The chapter about Turgot that I mentioned was the first that was showing me some more general wide economic narrative instead just of some big points or some isolated analyses of some concepts, so I really liked it, but it still felt short and incomplete. I'll not even talk of applying that knowledge to modern political economic analysis, as it it's obviously very beginner-like. Beyond this course I have only some old and poor background in Marx's basic texts. I guess I'll have to stay with the feeling for some time until I'll read either some of the more theoretical readings from the course or until I'll read some of the great Smith himself. Anyway, that's how it all goes. I've read maybe something like 7 hours in the past week, which is a very good result for me. Last time I've read so much was maybe two months ago, and before that, I don't know. I always read in short spurs between which (For weeks if not a month or two) I just do nothing and feel bad about being a useless NEET. I hope that with this less try-hardic approach I will be able to build more regular intellectual habits, ironically.
Anonymous 13-07-24 00:28:40 No. 22466
>>22462 that economic history shit sounds intertesting af anon, once I get around to reading that richard wolff book that explains different economic schools, I'll make this my next economic book.
My big problem is that I always end up half way through five books at the same time and it then takes me a ridiculous time to finish any of them. tbh what helped me get my reading hours up was putting small books in the car and backpack(s) so that if im ever randomly board I can just read instead of doomscrolling social media
Glownonymous 27-07-24 05:06:52 No. 22633
>>22631 I guess one way to help ensure these needs would be concerning the question of the introduction of bills, because that's a huge chokepoint like you can have everyone vote on everything all at 1 level, but who decides what to vote on? Petitions are the democratic means of this. A way to ensure that petitions aren't discriminatory over issues that impact a very small proportion of people would be to not implement signature minimums (or keep them small), but have a means of dissension, and have that be the gatekeeping factor (either some threshold of dissension is needed to bar the issue/bill being put forward, or some proportion of pro/signatures to con, or reasoned dissension, etc.). Ideally people who aren't involved shouldn't care to shut down something that has nothing to do with them, and will allow it through. Though it's probably best if petitions aren't directly writing law, but instead are for the creation of a committee to legislate or create an agency etc. to deal with an issue, and to deal with it generally in the direction laid out by the people. That'd b my schema.
Also I just wanna say, democracy starts outside of the political mechanism, in the organization of groups with mutual interest. In a condition of a responsive democracy, but not yet fully altered social and economic relations, historically oppressed groups need to be tightly organized [for the purpose of elaborating self-theory, promoting their agenda/needs, and for carrying out struggle to free themselves or having the organization and will in place to discipline the state somehow if their needs are not met] and see the struggle thru to the end. And if I got a choice, a new democracy I think ought to include within the political mechanism unique representation for historically oppressed groups, based on their organizations. Like some kind of veto power, or power to introduce legislation, or something else that does more than either leaving it up to their extra-state organizing or just over-representing them, e.g.
Actually is none of what I wrote abt a direct democracy? Whoopsie
Anonymous 31-07-24 15:58:56 No. 22646
Finished Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking by Daniel Dennett (2013). Dennett talks about various "intuition pumps", gripping metaphors that are handy, but sometimes misleading ("boom crutches"); laments the academic division into two cultures; he goes through various famous thought experiments; and he points out that many philosophers are committing the type of mistake known as paradox of the heap. I basically agree with the whole thing. Who or what is the "I" of the mind? Some speak of it as if it were like a homunculus sitting inside of the brain watching a screen (Dennett calls that view mockingly "Cartesian Theater"). And how does the mind of that homunculus work, is there a homunculus inside, and inside of that one is another one… this doesn't explain anything. Infinite regress. Dennett prefers to talk of something like lots of little people inside the brain, and you can think of these as a quite a bit more primitive, and they are made of something like even more primitive people, made of… and as you zoom in at some point you get something like very simple mechanisms doing nothing more complicated than comparing which of two signals is stronger. Why do some people have trouble believing in evolution? Paradox of the heap. Why are some people body-mind dualists? Paradox of the heap. They compare something complex with something very simple and they just can't imagine that trifling tiny things can add up to something very complex. Dennett talks about debunking bad intuition pumps by "turning the knobs", that is fiddling with the model assumptions (which are often not made explicit). I am not quite as enthusiastic about using that language when trying to debunk something that way because I'm worried about that language leading to some type of fallacy. Can you guess the type? People make the mistake of assuming an unchanging essence because thinking about change eats brain-processing power, it's a speed hack with the common risk of reducing accuracy, duh. We ignore small changes. Even when we are modifying a thing by quite a lot in quite a short span of time and are doing it deliberately so we should be aware of the changes, we still might think the thing as unchanging in essence, namely when we also expect that we can easily undo most of the modification. By speaking about changes in a model as turning knobs on a device we easily trick ourselves into believing that we haven't changed the essence of the model and are revealing what is always there, merely hidden in the other configurations. So, again the potential fallacy here is the paradox of the heap. Good book, except the little bit were he spreads the myth that the guy facing tanks in Tiananmen Square got rolled over by them. No footage of that exists. There is footage of him trolling the tanks until pulled away by what appear to be civilians. Let's end this with a nice quote from chapter 53:<Our minds don’t have a single magnificent summit, consciousness. Contrary to a tradition going back at least to Descartes in the seventeenth century, conscious phenomena are neither the most “central” nor the “highest” phenomena in our minds (Jackendoff, 1987; Dennett, 1991a). A seductive bad image needs a counter-image to neutralize it, so here is a simple imagination-adjuster to start us off: recall Cole Porter’s wonderful song “You’re the Top” and reflect that maybe you’re not the top—not the summit of the mountain, but the whole mountain, and what you know and can tell about the mountain that is you is not the view from the summit, but various views from halfway up. You might like to think of the phenomena of consciousness as rather like the fringe of hair around a bald man’s pate.
Anonymous 12-09-24 21:52:52 No. 22647
Finished
Utopia by Thomas More, in the 2012 Open Utopia version edited by Stephen Duncombe:
http://theopenutopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Open-Utopia-fifth-poofs-facing-amended.pdf http://theopenutopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/openutopia.epub_.zip If you want to read it yourself, my advice is to directly go to the story (book I & II). The footnotes will clarify anything for the modern reader. The "introduction" is like the worst Channel Awesome stuff: It goes through the entire thing, spoiling everything, has quite a size relative the thing it is supposed to just introduce, and gives an analysis that is made banal and redundant by the footnotes—which are great footnotes! Hail to the footnotes! Well done, Stephen.
Anonymous 19-09-24 09:13:20 No. 22717
Finished The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin (1892, in the 1913 translation by Chapman and Hall). Quotable but overall unconvincing. He criticizes labor-voucher proposals of the collectivists as authoritarian. I will criticize Kropotkin's vision not from the usual Marxist-Leninist position that some authoritarian measures are necessary (though I agree with that :P), instead I will point out that Kropotkin's proposal is in two aspects the more authoritarian one. <…there are no two ways of it. There is only one way in which Communism can be established equitably, only one way which satisfies our instincts of justice and is at the same time practical (…) In a word, the system is this: no stint or limit to what the community possesses in abundance, but equal sharing and dividing of those commodities which are scarce or apt to run short. A few sentences later:<…if this or that article of consumption runs short, and has to be doled out, to those who have most need most should be given. But these are two ideas in tension. A fusion of the two is equal personal budgets , so people are in a sense equal and they are their own individual standard when it comes to what they need. Kropotkin wants no budgets and no prices, instead standards set by society for what counts as being needy regarding this or that. And I'm not against such standards, but I'm aware that no matter how democratic the standard-setting procedures are, this standardizing is more authoritarian than the individuals deciding with their personal budgets. Of course, it's possible to have both: The standards of need and using your personal budget as a fallback if you don't qualify for assistance in these eyes of society. He mocks hourly remuneration. And what's his alternative?<Take, for example, an association stipulating that each of its members should carry out the following contract: “We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets, means of transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from twenty to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecrate four or five hours a day to some work recognized as necessary to existence (…) if it does not please you, go and look for other conditions elsewhere in the wide world, or else seek adherents and organize with them on novel principles. We prefer our own.” <This is what could be done in a communal society in order to turn away sluggards if they became too numerous. So his alternative is that society sets the standard of work hours . There will never be a perfect consensus on what the proper amount of hours should be just like there will never be a perfect consensus on what counts as need, convenience, or luxury. There is of course a relationship between how many hours humanity works and how much consumable stuff is produced. Why not allow individuals to decide their own work hours and face the consequence of having more or less stuff. (Is there much conflict between this idea and giving people the same consumption budgets? Well, we can think of more free time as something like a consumption item you obtain with your budget. And we can likewise think that way about more pleasant working conditions.) In conclusion, it doesn't mean much when people self-identify as anti-authoritarian. Kropotkin's vision runs against his self-proclaimed anti-authoritarianism and affirmation of diverse lifestyles.
Anonymous 20-09-24 23:31:45 No. 22741
>>22717 this to me is the principle criticism of communism as such and why i can never be a communist. the value-form (money) rationally distributes goods (including luxuries, like free time) by its inherent credit system which overcomes what smith identifies as "the double-coincidence of wants". think for example how a bus has limited seats - this is why you must pay to access this good, because by this payment, you limit access to the scarce goods. time also separates access, like how in my country, train tickets are cheaper for unpopular hours. however, the more demand means less supply; and so it is with free time. the only way to "decide" who gets free time is to pay for it, which also entails its necessary limits, and credit for this payment, like in pensions - if i work hard then i should play hard, no?
and the more primary issue as you state is the inevitability of individual production. okay - the community might not take your toothbrush, but it will probably take your computer if youre being "too" productive with it.
this communist vision then of "each according from their ability to each according to their need" finds contradiction between need and ability. this is also noted by marx in critique of gotha program as to the inherent inequality of labour-powers. this is also why many doctors leave to america to get paid more for their services.
money thus accords things to Reason, yet also has its own irrationality of course. this irrationality can be managed by a state however, which is also my further anticommunist sentiment - of the primacy of community in the state.
Anonymous 20-09-24 23:51:27 No. 22743
>>22742 i have read the capital trilogy and he never implies any of this sci-fi bullshit, but just talks about "expropriating the expropriators" by a sublation of social property and an end to surplus-value production. this is near the end of vol. 1
marxism is not post-scarcity illusions, but is the self-determination of economic life by central planning. it is the upending of the anarchy of production into a rational order of socially-necessary labour-time.
>chat gpt garbage if you cant comprehend my post then you must be a hypocrite to pretend that you yourself have read das kapital
what i said was very clear; that central planning is necessary, but should not be universal, otherwise you create irrational systems. money is rational in essence, but must also be qualified by a state (like in taxation).
Anonymous 21-09-24 01:10:37 No. 22744
>>22743 the first chapter explains the ltv that you don't understand. communism, the last stage, is the post-scarcity utopia. I would quote engels here but your posts doesn't deserve the effort + you would just throw words at it. I don't think you even understand the points presented to you or how to reply to them
marx never talked about central planning and the socially necessary labor time doesn't have anything to do with central planning. you are using terms you don't understand
Anonymous 21-09-24 01:24:49 No. 22747
>>22744 >the first chapter explains the ltv yes, as abstract labour, or SNLT - which seems irrelevant to this discussion
>communism, the last stage, is the post-scarcity utopia the last stage of what? history? what is "history" to you exactly?
>marx never talked about central planning what does negating the negation of the anarchy of production imply? or is your idea that marx never wanted to seize the means of production to make production a rational process?
>SNLT has nothing to do with central planning it has everything to do with central planning; as the framework for abolish surplus-value. marx says this many times in das kapital - where the notion of surplus-value itself is surplus-labour-time.
the point of communism is "each according from their ability, to each according to their needs", not this UBI post-scarcity you have conjured up. you can want that society, but that is not communism as such.
Anonymous 21-09-24 01:41:07 No. 22751
>>22746 no, my point is that the only way for communists to overcome the value-form is by central planning, and so central planning means the end of exchange and pricing, which to me is inefficient.
"communism" is about reproducing the conditions of primitive communism at a higher stage of development, where use-values are produced outside of the relations of exchange, but by society as a whole rather than individuals. this is only possible by the advent of social labour under capitalism, which leads to crises of overproduction, showing the productive potentials of this mode of production.
>>22748 >you failed to address my points i literally addressed all your points. you just live by slogans so cant deal with them.
>communism is le post-scarcity society this is not even the point made by engels, who himself sees the self-transformation of man toward his own rationality. you order the economy to order the social subject; thats the idea - not that there are infinite materials to waste - but that there would be no waste at all.
again, this phantom you conjure is contemporary conjecture, not anything "marxist" that i have ever encountered
>youve never read marx i have read more marx than 95% of "marxists", but i still disagree with him.
>>22749 i thought you had stopped replying to me?
Anonymous 21-09-24 02:04:10 No. 22752
>>22751 >my point >to me ? we were talking about the marxist definitions, what makes you think anyone cares about your personal definitions
>i literally addressed all your points? for example, when I point out that marx never said nor implied that the snlt should replace prices; the way to address it would be to post a quote where he either said either explicitly or reasonably and unambiguously hinted this. your entire idea of marxism comes from a (essentially meaningless) slogan, you are kind of projecting here
>what does negating the negation of the anarchy of production imply?? if you mean what does he imply by criticizing the market, the answer is that it doesn't necessarily imply anything, and critic is just a synonym of description. marx described the capitalist economy
>make production a rational processproduction under capitalism is rational according to marxism. just like all the modes that came before. constantly switching the topics isn't being a thinker, you are pivoting from subject to subject to exhaust your opponent and shift the attention from the fact that you have been called out
>the framework for abolish surplus-value? another claim marx never made. at most you stop the appropriation of the surplus
notice you didn't address the text quoted, it directly proves that you were wrong about the marxist definition of communism
>the point made by engels that quote isn't from engels. I thought you had read marx
Anonymous 21-09-24 02:44:21 No. 22754
>>22752 >marxist definitions what was un-marxist in my definitions?
>implying that i said that SNLT should replace prices i think youre hallucinating. i never stated that anywhere.
>marx criticising the market doesnt imply anything about resolving the anarchy of production yeah, sure. such a cowardly answer.
>production under capitalism is rational according to marxism. up to the point of its internal contradictions, like crises of overproduction. these show how capital's Reason is bound by irrationality, like how engels states in anti-duhring that the bourgeois revolutions were revolutions of reason, but a reason which only extended to the bourgeoisie itself; "socialism for the rich" and so on.
capitalism is also productive, until it is destructive. these contradictions require corrections.
>another claim marx never made (about abolishing surplus) the freedom of labour is in its freedom from necessity as marx says, which is discovered in SNLT. surplus is surplus-labour which would have to be exploited. thats why central planning also barrs the means of production from their individual use, which marx already describes as the process of the abolishment of handicraft and artisan labour in place of social labour, which capitalism gives birth to. socialism is simply about giving political concept to this mode of production, or like lenin says, he wants society to be a "factory floor". again - not my cup of tea.
>notice you didn't address the text quoted what about it? he is saying the same thing as im saying. communism is about overcoming the division of labour (which creates exchange-value to begin with), and so making labour "life's prime want" (where use-values are the "substance of value" - thus in giving labour its object in this immediate product). this is made possible through greater productivity in social production (where as marx notes, greater productivity lowers the Value of workers by his product being shared by machines. his Value - SNLT - thus is lowered which accords to labour's necessity in its role to society). and so "from each according from his ability to each according to his need". maybe you mistake "productivity" for commodity-production in this case, when as marx deliberately entails - production suffices man's NEEDs, not his desires. this is why communism is a philosophy of poverty.
>that quote isn't from engels i never said it was; i was referencing engels' socialism: utopian and scientific as to the self-transformation of man under socialism which accords to the social mode of production. this is also the idea of "the new soviet man".
>>22753 i never said SNLT replace prices. the first post i responded to was in agreement that labour vouchers would be rational but forbidden under communism according to kropotkin, and so i expanded this general criticism to marxism also.
labour vouchers make sense
communism doesnt
that was my basic point
my point isnt that marx supported labour vouchers, but that he doesnt.
Anonymous 21-09-24 03:06:59 No. 22755
>>22754 >what was un-marxist in my definitions? reading comprehension. I don't care about your definitions. the discussion was about marxist concepts - this is, what marx said, not if your personal ideas follow marxism. every time you write a reply you make the same reading comprehension mistakes. I assume you do this in extremely bad faith or because you are a using ai
>claim X>get called out >by X I meant Y all along lmao, another pivot and word salad. that quote disproves your claim that the slogan is anything else but an utopia unfeasible as a program (guess from which book it is) according to marx. it is funny that you thought it was from engels
Anonymous 21-09-24 03:17:07 No. 22756
>>22755 >ur wrong <how >ur just wrong extremely dishonest argumentation
you literally never point out where my definitions are incorrect and you call the substance of my reply word salad, when this is the very marxism i reference and which you pretend to defend
you have no arguments, literally, when i have saturated you with content in return
when i corner you in your amateur idiocy, you just deny it, like you will flippantly deny this reply as well, because in truth, you are the one who is unread
Anonymous 21-09-24 03:24:53 No. 22758
>>22756 >claim you are using marxist definitions <source? >I made it up you still haven't addressed
>>>/edu/22752 <? for example, when I point out that marx never said nor implied that the snlt should replace prices; the way to address it would be to post a quote where he either said either explicitly or reasonably and unambiguously hinted this. your entire idea of marxism comes from a (essentially meaningless) slogan, you are kind of projecting here and better yet, you write things like
>yeah, sure. such a cowardly answer. where you passive-aggressively admit you can't refute the point being made - if marx had made these claims and used these definitions you attribute him, you could just post that. just like you couldn't back up your claim that marx proposed a planned economy where snlt ordered production
of course, whenever pressed you keep the language vague enough so you as to not obstruct
>>>/edu/22757 Anonymous 21-09-24 03:52:47 No. 22760
>>22759 >>22758 i read das kapital a long time ago so cant pull quotes out of my ass. i have notes, not quotes, because quotes in-themselves are purely rhetorical and distract from the larger point being made. any idiot can type in "marx quotes" and not actually engage with the source material.
and on the point about central planning, marx makes direct reference to the self-movement of capital's demise in chapter 32 of capital vol. 1, where centralisation becomes the rule of profit, which thus becomes the rule of social production's overcoming of private property. here the expropriators are expropriated.
so im sure you would accept socialism entailing the centralisation of the means of production, but somehow you miss the point about this leading to the central planning of the economy by the state - which is communist dogma for a reason.
or are you a stalinist who accepts the socialist commodity? where does surplus-value fit into your vision of communism if you accept the role of this surplus? to me its very clear marx wants to overcome the value-form and division of labour, which means overcoming exchange and thus entering into centrally-planned production, which entails the order of production by SNLT, since to marx, man has his ends in this.
this again is why marx imagines an economy based on necessity (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need), which by definition limits social production to its determination in necessity, which has its basis in SNLT as its principle.
no?
your ideas of a post-scarcity society is not marxist in concept. labour being life's prime want doesnt mean we just make shit in a pile; it means labour becomes free in its determination to necessity (in use-values); where individual and social labour are bound up in the same destiny. this is the concept of central planning as such - what i want must be accorded with the wants of everybody else, since production has become social in kind.
and all this is based in the "end of history" which is supposed to return us to (primitive) communism at a higher stage of development, to return us to the substance of labour (in use-values). as marx states, before commodities, there were only use-values. communism is about returning to this, which is only possible by central planning.
this is not even controversial at all except to obtuse contrarians like yourself apparently.
i am already right. im just trying to show you that youre wrong.
>>22759 yes, capitalism is rational, until its not. ive already said this.
Anonymous 04-10-24 07:33:50 No. 22794
Marx and Le Capital —Finally a Marx book for redditors? No, it's a 2022 collection of essays about Kapital's French translation, the collection edited by Marcello Musto. It's endless hairsplitting. What could I have expected though? Not to repeat so much. The same bit by Engels complaining about modern French appears twice. Three essays mention the French edition injecting the term "industrial ladder" into some sentence (I agree with the third of these saying it doesn't make a big difference). Six people are jacking off in their separate essays about what "aplatir" means. Marx promising the reader a "scientific value" of the French version independent of the original gets mentioned nine times. Didn't care much about the essays, but at the end comes a section with some letters by Marx and others from back when the translation was happening, among them ten by Marx only recently found. Turns out these are also not interesting. But there are these lovely sentences by Maurice Lachâtre sent to Karl Marx, 17 February 1872:<A peculiar destiny presides over the creation of this book, for its translation into French is a true act of creation. <The author is an exile living amid the fogs of the Thames; the publisher is also an outlaw, who as if by a miracle escaped three gangs of killers sent to shoot him on the infernal day of 24 May!* The man who put us in touch with each other, your son-in-law, is also an outlaw, driven into exile by the winds of persecution and followed by your beloved daughter and the poor dear child, whose frail health causes you so many worries. <Born in the midst of suffering, your book will perhaps earn me much persecution; I willingly accept it. *The publisher is the guy writing these words. The killers shot his friend.
Unique IPs: 146