/labor/ - Labor

eternal reminder that even marx and engels were already dealing with college student pseuds in the 19th century

>That our workers are capable of it is borne out by their many producer and consumer cooperatives which, whenever they're not deliberately ruined by the police, are equally well and far more honestly run than the bourgeois stock companies. I cannot see how you can speak of the ignorance of the masses in Germany after the brilliant evidence of political maturity shown by the workers in their victorious struggle against the Anti-Socialist Law. The patronizing and errant lecturing of our so-called intellectuals seems to me a far greater impediment. We are still in need of technicians, agronomists, engineers, chemists, architects, etc., it is true, but if the worst comes to the worst we can always buy them just as well as the capitalists buy them, and if a severe example is made of a few of the traders among them — for traders there are sure to be — they will find it to their own advantage to deal fairly with us. But apart from the specialists, among whom I also include schoolteachers, we can get along perfectly well without the other “intellectuals.” The present influx of literati and students into the party, for example, may be quite damaging if these gentlemen are not properly kept in check.

>The biggest obstacles are the small peasants and the importunate super-clever intellectuals who always think they know everything so much the better, the less they understand it.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm

>why is [field] so intellectually barren, it's just learning what tools are and to use them.
If you can't figure out how to apply the tools you're given to the canvas, that's not your colleages being vapid, that's you failing to speak with your professors about this issue.

>>1342
Any reasonably intelligent person can apply anything to anything. That doesnt preclude the fact that STEM isnt teaching anything worthy of being applied in the first place. Tell me how intellectually rich a binary tree is, or a stupid depth first search algorithm? Or the concept of logarithms?

These are facile concepts with no real application to society or communism. They don't enrich an individual, theyre intended to make the bourgeois and capitalists more profits.

>>1343
>Any reasonably intelligent person can apply anything to anything.
Precisely, so an intellectually enriching environment is one that introduces you to more things to tinker with.
>That doesnt preclude the fact that STEM isnt teaching anything worthy of being applied in the first place.
If you feel that the entirety of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics isn't profound enough for you then get into philosophy or something idk.
>Tell me how intellectually rich a binary tree is, or a stupid depth first search algorithm?
The point is it's use. You intellectually enrich it through novel application, not the other way around.
I think the reason programming classes drill those is they're a sorta level 2 Hello World: you figure out how to implement them in code, then you'll know how to describe novel things and implement them in code.
>Or the concept of logarithms?
Get into trigonometry and they'll show you neat ways it's been used.
>These are facile concepts with no real application
Again, you're going to tools class then struggle to apply them to canvas.

You're in the art school conundrum where they didn't teach you what to paint, only how and with what, and now you only know how and with what, but are drawing nothing but blanks.