Previous thread: >>2177902
Dump all the seemingly pointless, dubious, and frivolous questions that don't deserve their own shitty threads.
Got a question that's probably been asked a million times before? You're in the right landfill, buddy. Post it here.
Threads that otherwise might go in here will eventually find themselves become merged to this thread.
>>2384879History of the Three Internationals by William Z. Foster
The Internationale by R. Palme Dutt
The Death of Social Democracy by Ashley Lavelle
>>2395241YOU ARE WRONG. YOUR ERROR: Suggesting nobles and communists were exiled for the same reason.
>Why did the Czarist police even bother with arresting and exiling Lenin and other communist to Siberian prisonsSelective exile maintained the illusion of bourgeois law, preventing unified revolt. Dissenting nobles were often exiled while thousands of masses would be murdered. Nobles were exiled to preserve aristocratic unity.
> it would have been far easier and less hurtful to them to just execute all dissidents on the spot?WRONG. It would have been worse to kill every dissenting noble because they would be made martyrs for masses. Exile served to develop domestic periphery.
>>2395534you have to think about thinking
"reason" (λόγος) is "logos", which becomes "logic"
logic is the structure of the mind therefore
applied logic becomes mathematics and mathematics broaches into natural science. so its all related.
as a test of thinking, we may use hypothetical propositions which test the limits of our thought. once we come into conflict with λόγος we may call this a "contradiction", or a unity of opposition. the "illogical" is therefore the unreasonable, and so is the untrue. as a perfect example, from a sum's own terms, 1+1=2. can we therefore imagine 1+1=3? they say the mind is endless, yet we cannot imagine the impossible. the mind's movement from imagination to reason thus entails considering the structure of thinking itself. the mind thus, is always thinking in its own terms. the art of thinking thus entails a search for truth.
>>2404887We have the opposite problem. People use the term "socialism" for anything that is not some pure hypothetical version of capitalism, so putting the label "non-Marxist" in front of it still is far too unspecific. You should rather choose another term. And don't use "market" or "democratic" either here, you really have to get more specific than that: Try to come up with a sentence that describes the gist of it and that you can abbreviate to a word that you can pronounce.
>>2407106We have ample empirical evidence that capitalism everywhere comes with mass unemployment, but we don't have a tight logical proof that capitalism is incompatible with full employment. The argument for unemployment being necessary in capitalism is that the threat of unemployment disciplines labor. But the threat of a more shitty alternative form of employment with enough social stigma would also do the trick. So I do believe that a capitalist state could run a full employment scheme with the state directly employing anyone asking. Such a state could do without requiring a minimum wage in the private sector and it could drastically cut benefits to anyone who isn't very old or disabled without public outcry.
>>2407192>But the threat of a more shitty alternative form of employment with enough social stigma would also do the trick.It's interesting that even among mainstream economists (e.g. excluding MMT, and some post-Keynsian economists) NAIRU (non-accelerated inflation rate of unemployment) seems widely accepted. I'm now skeptical of the notion of non-counter-cyclical attempts to reduce unemployment, that is to reduce unemployment below NAIRU.
Doesn't workfare just reduce the number of discouraged workers (technically not unemployed because they're not seeking work), and specifically low-skill discouraged workers. It isn't an unemployment policy. But then again looking at the labor participation rates we see no positive change following the welfare reform of '96.
How is this possible? >>2408113>>2408140>NAIRUHysterical term. If you wanted to argue for inflation existing at some level of low unemployment, the accurate term would be NIRU; and if you wanted to argue for the existence of an inflation-increasing effect, the accurate term would be NIIRU. The existence of an
acceleration rate of the inflation rate would mean something like the inflation rate itself doubling every X days. Of course, you can argue it's technically correct to say NAIRU because your mental model is probably NIIRU and NIIRU implies NAIRU (if the inflation rate does not increase, it can't accelerate either). You can argue like that if you are pure slime.
The US does not follow a policy seeking full-employment, so all your pooping about how they
"fail
" to reach full employment is besides the point. What the US gov actually does is that it chokes the economy with higher interest rates whenever unemployment gets too low (
as seen from the POV of a certain class of people), with the blahblah about reining in inflation the officially stated reason. "Ah, but you see you stupid proles, since it takes a while for the inflation effects to happen we can't actually look at these effects to recalibrate our theory, we'll have to take the unemployment rate as a proxy of the inflation that would come later, sorry bout that, uwu."
>>2408317Splice, or trim?
If you have a computer then `yt-dlp` to download in full quality, then use handbrake (a convenient wrapper around the legendary ffmpeg software) to trim the clip that you want.
If you want to splice a montage together, download kdenlive for easy video editing.
>>2408519I don't know why I thought about this
Probably the same as mine, hypothetically. But politics aside, angry white guy? Well, that's no good.
I wonder if he'd tell people to kill themselves. He could be quite polemic, which would be amplified by the medium (standup instead of "respectable" politics).
>>2408140>>2408287It seems that inflation is a leading indicator of unemployment rather than the other way around.
And the naming of the article doesn't seem to be too interesting at the moment.
Amusingly the means to reduce NAIRU all seem terrible, because they target increasing the discipline of labor.
Not only that, but they also seem to be based on relatively weak empirical evidence.
The only exceptions seemed to be active labor market policies which improve work-employee fit.
If the idea of "creating jobs" in a noncountercyclic nonstructural way just left we would probably be better off.
Then again maybe we're already doing this.
>>2412465honestly haven't in many years
When I was young and naive I used to frequent for a short period.
They are STEM fags that are dabbling in things they cannot quite grasp.
You need historical consciousness to really grasp the development of the world (which ofc produces the world of thinking/logic and all the rest).
Politically, they are a whole lot of nothing, leftliberal (the standard enlightened w*stoid, we are for good things and against bad things). Things are not ideal, oh they could be a bit better. There is so much to optimize. With the endpoint (just speculating) being: get the engineers and other STEMautists in power.
>>2414876wait until he finds out about wage slavery
will the british empire end this, too?
>>2414880Well the trick is they are the same. In any case, neither has political consciousness beyond that of any child.
Everyone is for good things, it's meaningless.
Unique IPs: 49